Justice Dipankar Datta, Supreme Court of India.
Justice Dipankar Datta Urges Stern Action Against “External Forces” Impeding Collegium Recommendations: Nagpur – Supreme Court judge Justice Dipankar Datta on Saturday called for a resolute approach against “external forces” that obstruct the implementation of Collegium recommendations for judicial appointments, while simultaneously emphasizing the need for fairness and transparency in the appointment process.
Justice Datta’s remarks were delivered during a felicitation ceremony organized by the Bombay High Court Bar Association of the Nagpur Bench, held in honor of Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai. His comments shed light on the ongoing complexities and criticisms surrounding India’s system of judicial appointments.
Addressing CJI Gavai directly, Justice Datta stressed that for judges to continue their role in appointing judges, all recommendations made by the Supreme Court Collegium must be acted upon. He expressed concern over instances where recommendations remain unaddressed for extended periods.
“That does not happen,” Justice Datta observed, citing a personal experience: “I recall when I was a member of the Calcutta High Court Collegium in 2019, we had recommended a member of the bar six years. Nothing has been done. He is now 58 or 59… Why does this happen? Has anybody questioned?”
He continued, advocating for strong measures: “So therefore, the external forces which prevent the Collegium’s recommendations from being acted upon should be dealt with sternly and I feel that whatever proceedings are pending should be given top priority to ensure that merit, merit and only merit is considered and not extraneous considerations.”
Justice Dipankar Datta also used the occasion to challenge the prevailing narrative that “judges appoint judges,” a notion often cited by critics of the Collegium system. “Sir, this is an appeal to you. It’s high time that we dispense the misconceived notion that judges appoints judges. Critics of the collegium system have been vociferous – why should there be a collegium system?” he stated.
To illustrate his point, Justice Datta invoked a historical perspective, recalling instances from the 1980s when several senior judges from the Bombay High Court – Chief Justice M.N. Chandurkar, Chief Justice Chittatosh Mookerjee, and Chief Justice P.D. Desai – were arguably overlooked for elevation to the Supreme Court. He suggested that these judges were no less capable than those who were elevated during that period.
“Does anybody question the pre-collegial system of appointment of judges?” Justice Datta queried, drawing a distinction from widely known supersessions like those in 1974 following the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, and the supersession of Justice H.R. Khanna. He pointedly asked why the perceived non-elevation of Justices Chandurkar, Mookerjee, and Desai often goes unexamined in discussions about judicial appointments.
Justice Datta’s remarks underscore the persistent debate surrounding judicial appointments in India, highlighting concerns about transparency, external interference, and the need to prioritize merit above all else, regardless of the specific system in place. His call for stern action against impediments to Collegium recommendations signals a desire for greater efficiency and integrity in the process of building the nation’s judiciary.
