Supreme Court judge Justice PS Narasimha on Monday, November 2, recused himself from hearing a petition that raises the delay of nearly 11 years in finalising the revised Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) governing appointments of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts, LiveLaw and Law Trend reported.

Source: LiveLaw

The matter was listed before a Bench of Justice Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe. At the outset, Justice Narasimha said he would not be able to hear it because he had served as Additional Solicitor General before the five-judge Bench in the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) matter, and directed that the case be placed before the Chief Justice of India for an appropriate order.

Source: Law Trend

A procedure pending since the 2015 NJAC judgment

The Article 32 petition, filed by Lok Prahari through its General Secretary S.N. Shukla, states that after the 2015 judgment striking down the NJAC, a five-judge Constitution Bench had directed that the existing MoP could be supplemented and finalised by the Government of India in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. The areas identified for improvement included eligibility criteria, transparency in selection, a permanent secretariat and a mechanism for complaints against prospective judges.

According to the petitioner, the revised MoP has remained unfinalised for nearly 11 years despite repeated correspondence between the Government and the Supreme Court. The petition raises concerns over the absence of clearly defined and publicly available criteria for evaluating candidates, and the absence of recorded reasons for selecting certain candidates over others.

Lok Prahari has sought directions requiring the Chief Justice of India and the Union Government to complete the revision within a specified time, measures to make appointments more objective, transparent and accountable, and a direction that minutes of Collegium meetings on selection be accessible under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Senior Advocate Sanjay Hedge appeared for the petitioner, filed through Advocate-on-Record Shashank Singh.

The recusal does not decide any of those questions. The petition will be heard only after the Chief Justice constitutes an appropriate Bench, so the 11-year-old question of a finalised appointments procedure remains open.