Collegium cleared 11 judges. Government sat on them. Court called it contempt.

Bengaluru Advocates Drag Government to Contempt Over Judge Appointments

When the Advocates Association Bengaluru filed a contempt petition in the Supreme Court, it wasn't about a routine procedural lapse. It was about a system that, in the Court's own words, had become a device to compel candidates to withdraw their names. The petition alleged that the Union Government was sitting on eleven names cleared by the Supreme Court Collegium for appointment as High Court judges — the oldest since September 2021 — without either appointing them or communicating any reservations. Ten reiterated names were also pending. One candidate had withdrawn consent. Another, Mr. Jaytosh Majumdar, had passed away while his appointment languished.

The stakes were stark: the constitutional machinery for staffing the higher judiciary was grinding to a halt, and the Court was being asked to decide whether this amounted to contempt of its own orders.

The timeline the Court had already set

This wasn't the first time the Supreme Court had intervened. On 20 April 2021, a three-judge bench in T.P.(C) No. 2419/2019 had laid down broad timelines for completing the judicial appointment process. The principle was clear: names should be sent six months in advance of anticipated vacancies. The process, once initiated, should not be allowed to stall.

But by the time the contempt petition was filed on 25 October 2021, the Government had already breached those timelines. The petition was listed for the first time on 11 November 2022 before a two-judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Abhay S. Oka.

What the Court found on its table

The Bench examined the status of pending recommendations. Eleven names cleared by the Collegium were with the Government — no appointment, no communication of reservations. Ten names that had been reiterated after the Government raised objections were also pending. One candidate whose name was reiterated after the Government's objection had withdrawn consent, citing the delay. Another, Mr. Jaytosh Majumdar, had died while his appointment was pending.

The Court also noted that a Supreme Court appointment recommendation was pending for over five weeks.

Justice Kaul, writing for the Bench, observed that keeping recommended or reiterated names on hold operates as a device to compel candidates to withdraw their names. This, the Court said, was not acceptable.

The Government's obligation after reiteration

The ratio decidendi in this case is sharp and actionable. The Court held that once the Government has expressed its reservation on a recommended name, and the Collegium has dealt with that reservation, upon second reiteration, the Government must proceed with the appointment. Keeping names pending beyond second reiteration is impermissible.

This is not a suggestion. It is a binding interpretation of the constitutional scheme under Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution of India.

THE PLAY: If the Collegium reiterates a name after considering the Government's objection, the Government cannot sit on it. The appointment must follow. Any further delay is a breach of the constitutional process and may invite contempt proceedings.

The human cost of delay

The Court did not stop at legal analysis. It made an observation that resonates beyond the courtroom: with expanding opportunities for prominent lawyers, it is already a challenge to persuade persons of eminence to accept invitation to the Bench. Protracted appointment processes further discourage them.

One candidate had already withdrawn consent. Another had died. The Court noted that unless the Bench is adorned by competent lawyers, the very concept of Rule of Law and Justice suffers.

This is not obiter in the traditional sense — it is a warning about systemic consequences.

Contempt notice to top bureaucrats

The Court found a prima facie breach of its directions. It issued notice to the current Secretary (Justice) and the current Additional Secretary (Administration and Appointment) in contempt proceedings. The notice was made returnable on 28 November 2022. A copy of the order was to accompany the notice, and a copy was to be served on the office of the learned Attorney General.

The Court also directed that M.A. D. No. 33859/2022 be listed on 14 November 2022 as directed by the Chief Justice of India, with intimation to the Bar Council of India, Bar Council of Orissa, and concerned Bars through the Registrar General of the Orissa High Court.

What this means for practitioners

For advocates, this judgment is a template for enforcing compliance with judicial appointment timelines. The contempt jurisdiction is now live. The Court has made it clear that keeping names on hold is not a neutral act — it is a device that compels withdrawal.

For CFOs and founders, the takeaway is different but equally important. The same principle applies to any process where a decision-maker sits on a recommendation after objections have been addressed. Delay, after a second reiteration, is not just inefficiency — it is a breach of duty.

The bottom line: If the Collegium reiterates a name, the Government must appoint. If it doesn't, the Court will call it contempt. And it will name the officers responsible.