SC collegium recommends six advocates for appointment as Judges of Kerala HC

New Delhi [India], March 13 : The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the names of six advocates, including Manoj Pulamby Madhavan for appointment as judges of the High Court of Kerala, trashing the Centre's inputs on Madhavan.
On March 12, the Collegium resolved to recommend that advocates Abdul Hakhim Mullappally Abdul Aziz, Syam Kumar Vadakke Mudavakkat, Harisankar Vijayan Menon, Manu Sreedharan Nair, Easwaran Subramani, and Manoj Pulamby Madhavan be appointed as judges of the High Court of Kerala and said that their inter se seniority would be fixed as per the existing practice.
The Supreme Court Collegium, which has recommended advocate Manoj Pulamby Madhavan to be appointed as Kerala High Court judge along with the the the other five judges, called Department of Justice input that candidate Manoj Pulamby Madhavan "is considered to be a CPI(M) sympathizer" as extremely vague.
The SC collegium said the input that an advocate Manoj Pulamby Madhavan is considered to be a CPI(M) sympathizer is vague and bereft of cogent grounds. Drawing example of appointment of Justice Victoria Gowri as Madras HC's judge,SC collegium said in the recent past, an Advocate has been appointed as a Judge of the High Court though she was an office
bearer of a political party prior to her elevation.
Justice Lekshmana Chandra Victoria Gowri was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Madras High Court in February 2023.
The collegium has taken note of the inputs provided by the Department of Justice that advocate Manoj Pulamby Madhavan is considered to be a CPI(M) sympathizer. Advocate Manoj Pulamby Madhavan was appointed as Government Pleader in 2010 and 2016-2021 by the LDF Government.
"The above input that the candidate "is considered to be a CPI (M) sympathizer" is extremely vague. Similarly, the fact that he was appointed as a government pleader in 2010 and 2016-2021 by the LDF government does not constitute a valid reason to reject his candidature. As a matter of fact, the appointment of the candidate as a government pleader would indicate that he would have acquired sufficient experience in handling cases where the state is a party in diverse branches of law. The input that the candidate is considered to be a CPI (M) sympathizer is otherwise vague and bereft of cogent grounds. Even otherwise, the mere fact that the candidate has had a political background may not be a sufficient reason in all cases," the collegium said.
"The input that the candidate (advocate Madhavan) is considered to be a CPI (M) sympathizer is otherwise vague and bereft of cogent grounds. Even otherwise, the mere fact that the candidate has a political background may not be a sufficient reason in all cases. For example, in the recent past, an advocate has been appointed as a judge of the High Court, though she was an office bearer of a political party prior to her elevation," the collegium resolution said.
"The candidate (advocate Madhavan), being a SC candidate with sufficient practice at the bar, is worthy of being appointed as a Judge of the High Court. His performance having been observed by the members of the Collegium of the High Court who had the occasion to observe his competence and conduct as a lawyer, their opinion should be given due weight. The Collegium is, therefore, of the view that the candidate is fit and suitable for appointment as a Judge of the High Court," said the collegium resolution passed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud along with justices Sanjiv Khanna and B R Gavai.
According to resolution, advocate Madhavan belongs to a Scheduled Caste, he has 35 reported judgments of the High Court where he has appeared and has a professional income of Rs. 9.57 lakhs.
The collegium resolution also said that the other five advocates are fit and suitable for appointment as judges of the high court, as it noted that inputs provided in the file indicate that the other five advocates enjoy a good personal and professional image and nothing adverse has come to notice with regard to their integrity.
In a separate resolution, the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended that eleven additional judges of the High Court of Bombay, be appointed as permanent judges of the Bombay High Court. The name include Justice Urmila Sachin Joshi-Phalke, Justice Bharat Pandurang Deshpande, Justice Kishore Chandrakant Sant, Justice Valmiki S A Menezes, Justice Kamal Rashmi Khata, Justice Sharmila Uttamrao Deshmukh, Justice Arun Ramnath Pedneker, Justice Sandeep Vishnupant Marne, Justice Gauri Vinod Godse, Justice Rajesh Shantaram Patil, and Justice Arif Saleh Doctor.
Meanwhile, in another resolution, the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended that five Additional Judges of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, be appointed as permanent Judges of that High Court, whose name include Justice Saurabh Srivastava, Justice Om Prakash Shukla, Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi, Justice Jyotsna Sharma, and Justice Surendra Singh-I.
Another resolution by the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the name of Mohammad Yousuf Wani, a judicial officer, as a judge of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.