Justice A.R. Lakashmanan is factually incorrect

In the article “Appointing Chief Justices: The way out (The Tribune, New Delhi, Sept 13, p. 9), the Justice A.R. Lakshmanan’s (retired Judge, Supreme Court of India and former Chairman, Law Commission of India) observation that “The Collegium is now to consist of the Chief Justice of India and four seniormost Judges of the court and in the appointment of a High Court Judge, the Supreme Court Judge acquainted with that particular High Court should also be consulted raising the number to six” is factually incorrect. As a matter of fact and record, in the case of appointment of High Court Judges, the collegium consists of the Chief Justice of India and the two senior-most puisne Judges of the Supreme Court. In arriving at any decision, the collegium has to elicit the views, amongst others, of colleagues on the Supreme Court Bench “who are conversant with the affairs of the concerned High Court” (kindly advert to paras 26, 27 and 41of the celebrated case, In Re: Presidential Reference, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1).
Interestingly, the memorandum of procedure qua appointment of the judges in High Courts drawn by the Ministry of Law and Justice seemingly in deference to the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of S.C. Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 268, para 501, sub para 13 at p. 439 (also known as Second Judges Case) sets out that
“The Chief Justice of India would send his recommendation for the appointment of a puisne Judge of the High Court as Chief Justice of that High Court or of another High Court, in consultation with the two seniormost Judges of the Supreme Court. He would also ascertain the views of the seniormost colleague in the Supreme Court who is conversant with the affairs of the High Court in which the recommendee has been functioning and whose opinion is likely to be significant in adjudging the suitability of the candidate.”
It is noteworthy that whereas the said memorandum is restrictive in a sense that it circumscribes the consultation only with the seniormost colleague ……. and there is no such limitation expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court in the Re Presidential case as above indicated.
In fact, His Lordship’s observation about the composition of the collegium holds good regarding the appointments of the judges in the Supreme Court and the transfer of the judges of the High Courts with an addition that said collegium has also to seek the views of the Chief Justice of the High Court from which the transfer is to be effected and of the Chief Justice of the High Court to which the transfer is to be effected.
It is also pertinent to mention here that Justice A.R. Lakshamanan is the author of the 18TH Law Commission of India (LCI), 214th Report on "Proposal for Reconsideration of Judges cases I, II and III - S.P. Gupta Vs UOl reported in AIR 1982 SC 149, Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association V s UOl reported in 1993 (4) SCC 441 and Special Reference 1 of 1998 reported in 1998 (7) SC 739". The recommendations of this report also stands reiterated in the later 230th Report of LCI.
The record needs to be set straight.