THE INDIAN JURIST | WWW.THEINDIANJURIST.

COM

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

This relates to the proposal for appointment of the following six

Advocates as Judges of the Calcutta High Court:

1. Shri Piush Chaturvedi

2. Smt. Shampa Sarkar
3. Shri Sabyasachi Chaudhury
4. Shri Ravi Krishan Kapur
5. Shri Arindam Mukherjee
6. Shri Sakya Sen.

The above recommendation has been unanimously made by the then

Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court on 3 rd November, 2016 in consultation
with his two senior-most colleagues.

The Chief Minister and the Governor of the State of West Bengal have
concurred with the proposal for elevation of all the above-named
recommendees.

In order to ascertain suitability of the above-named recommendees for

elevation to the High Court, we have consulted our colleague who, among the
sitting Judges in the Supreme Court, alone is conversant with the affairs of the
Calcutta High Court. A copy of letter of opinion of our consultee-colleague
received in this regard is placed below.

Intelligence Bureau has reported, inter alia, that all the above-named
recommendees enjoy good personal and professional image and that
nothing adverse has come to notice against their integrity.
THE INDIAN JURIST | WWW.THEINDIANJURIST.COM

As regards Shri Piush Chaturvedi (mentioned at Sl. No. 1 above) his

average professional income is well below the prescribed minimum
professional income limit. As he does not qualify the income criterion, the
proposal for his elevation to the High Court does not inspire confidence and
is, therefore, rejected.

As regards Shri Sabyasachi Chaudhury and Shri Sakya Sen

(mentioned at Sl. No.3 and 6 above), both appear to have been
recommended by the High Court Collegium considering their ability and
performance in the Court and the shortage of Judges from the Bar, though
on the date of recommendation they were below the prescribed minimum
age limit of 45 years. Shri Sabyasachi Chaudhury has completed 45 years
of age and hence we recommend his name for elevation. In the case of Shri
Sakya Sen, we approve his name for elevation in relaxation of the age
criterion.

We have taken note of the observations of the Department of Justice

raising the issue of non-receipt of undertaking by the father of Shri Ravi
Krishan Kapur (mentioned at Sl. No.4 above), who is a practicing advocate in
the Calcutta High Court in terms of Annexure I (i). As per record, this
practice of requiring an undertaking from a practicing relation of a
recommendee is based on mere administrative instructions and is not a
mandatory requirement. In our view, such an undertaking need not be
insisted upon from the recommendees. We have also taken note of the
observation relating to less number of reported / unreported judgments of
Shri Arindam Mukherjee (mentioned at Sl. No.5 above). In our view, number
of reported / unreported judgments is just one of the factors and not the only
factor to determine suitability of a recommendee for purpose of elevation.

Considering the material on record, including the views of our

consultee-colleague, and the report of the Intelligence Bureau, the Collegium
finds that (1) Smt. Shampa Sarkar, S/Shri (2) Sabyasachi Chaudhury, (3)
Ravi Krishan Kapur, (4) Arindam Mukherjee, and (5) Sakya Sen, Advocates
are suitable for being appointed as Judges of the Calcutta High Court.
THE INDIAN JURIST | WWW.THEINDIANJURIST.COM

In view of the above, the Collegium resolves to recommend that (1)

Smt. Shampa Sarkar, S/Shri (2) Sabyasachi Chaudhury, (3) Ravi Krishan
Kapur, (4) Arindam Mukherjee, and (5) Sakya Sen, Advocates be appointed
as Judges of the Calcutta High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per
the existing practice.

( Dipak Misra) C.J.I.

( J. Chelameswar ), J.

( Ranjan Gogoi ), J.
December 4, 2017.
THE INDIAN JURIST | WWW.THEINDIANJURIST.COM

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

This file relates to the proposal for appointment of Mr. Justice

Narendar G., Additional Judge of the Karnataka High Court, for a
fresh term of one year.

The Collegium of the Karnataka High Court vide Minutes

dated 1st August, 2017, has recommended that term of Mr. Justice
Narendar G., Additional Judge, be extended for one year w.e.f. 1 st
January, 2018.

The Chief Minister of Karnataka has recommended for

confirmation of Mr. Justice Narendar G. as Permanent Judge. The
Governor of Karnataka too has taken view that if the performance of
the Judge is satisfactory, it is necessary to confirm him as
Permanent Judge.

In order to ascertain suitability of Mr. Justice Narendar G., for

appointment as Additional Judge for a fresh term, we have consulted
our colleagues who are conversant with the affairs of the Karnataka
High Court. Copies of letters of opinion of our consultee-colleagues
received in this regard is placed below.

The Committee constituted in terms of the Resolution dated

26th October, 2017 of the Supreme Court Collegium, after going
through the Judgements of Mr. Justice Narendar G. in its Report
dated 20th November, 2017 (copy placed below) has recommended
for extension of his term as an Additional Judge for a fresh term of
one year.

Taking into consideration the material on record, including the

views of our consultee-colleagues, Constitutional authorities in the
State of Karnataka, the Collegium finds Mr. Justice Narendar G.
suitable for appointment as Permanent Judge. While making this
THE INDIAN JURIST | WWW.THEINDIANJURIST.COM

observation, we have duly taken note of the fact that the High Court
Collegium while recommending extension of his term as Additional
Judge has not placed on record any material for not recommending
him for appointment as Permanent Judge though a permanent post
is available.

In view of the above, the Collegium resolves to recommend

that Mr. Justice Narendar G., Additional Judge, be appointed as a
Permanent Judge of the Karnataka High Court.

Since the present term of Mr. Justice Narendar G., as

Additional Judge, is expiring on 1st January, 2018, it would be
appropriate if the above proposal is processed expeditiously.

( Dipak Misra ), C.J.I.

( J. Chelameswar ), J.

( Ranjan Gogoi ), J.

December 4, 2017
THE INDIAN JURIST | WWW.THEINDIANJURIST.COM

File No. K-13022/02/2017-US.II

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

This file relates to the proposal for appointment of following

two Additional Judges of the Jharkhand High Court, as Permanent
Judges of that High Court:

1. Mr. Justice Ananda Sen

2. Mr. Justice Anant Bijay Singh

The Collegium of the Jharkhand High Court vide Minutes

dated 21st April, 2017 has unanimously recommended the above-
named Additional Judges for appointment as Permanent Judges of
that High Court, after taking into consideration, inter alia, their overall
performance.

The above recommendation has received the concurrence of

the Chief Minister and the Governor of the State of Jharkhand.

In order to ascertain suitability of the above-named

recommendees for being appointed as Permanent Judges, we have
consulted our colleague who is conversant with the affairs of the
Jharkhand High Court. A copy of letter of opinion of our consultee-
colleague received in this regard is placed below.

The Committee constituted in terms of the Resolution dated

26th October, 2017 of the Supreme Court Collegium, after going
through the judgments of Mr. Justices Ananda Sen and Anant Bijay
THE INDIAN JURIST | WWW.THEINDIANJURIST.COM

Singh in its Report dated 8th November, 2017 (copy placed below)
has found their judgments as good and/or upto the mark.

We have taken note of certain complaints making allegations

against the above-named recommendees. We do not see any merit
in the aforesaid complaints as the allegations made therein are
either frivolous, unsubstantiated, general in nature and/or not
supported by any verifiable material. In our considered view, the said
complaints being shorn of merit, deserve to be ignored, particularly,
in the light of positive material on record.

Taking into consideration the recommendation of the High

Court Collegium, views of our consultee-colleague and the report of
the Judgment Evaluation Committee, the Collegium finds both the
above-named Additional Judges suitable for being appointed as
Permanent Judges.

In view of the above, the Collegium resolves to recommend

that Mr. Justices (1) Ananda Sen, and (2) Anant Bijay Singh,
Additional Judges be appointed as Permanent Judges of the
Jharkhand High Court.

( Dipak Misra ), C.J.I.

( J. Chelameswar ), J.

( Ranjan Gogoi ), J.

December 4, 2017.
THE INDIAN JURIST | WWW.THEINDIANJURIST.COM

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

This file relates to the proposal for appointment of following eighteen

Additional Judges of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, as Permanent Judges of
that High Court:

Mr. Justices:
1. Atul Shreedharan

2. Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

3. Vivek Rusia

4. Anand Pathak

5. Ved Prakash Sharma

6. Jagdish Prasad Gupta

7. Anurag Kumar Shrivastava

8. Housla Prasad Singh

9. Ashok Kumar Joshi

10. Vivek Agarwal

11. Smt. Nandita Dubey

12. Rajeev Kumar Dubey

13. Smt. Anjuli Palo

14. Virender Singh

15. S.K. Awasthi

16. Vijay Kumar Shukla

17. G.S. Ahluwalia

18. Subodh Abhyankar

THE INDIAN JURIST | WWW.THEINDIANJURIST.COM

The Collegium of the Madhya Pradesh High Court vide

Minutes dated 19th April, 2017 has unanimously recommended the
above-named Additional Judges for appointment as Permanent
Judges of that High Court.

The above recommendation has the concurrence of the Chief

Minister and the Governor of the State of Madhya Pradesh.

In order to ascertain suitability of the above-named

recommendees for being appointed as Permanent Judges, we have
consulted our colleagues who are conversant with the affairs of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court. Copies of letters of opinion of our
consultee-colleagues received in this regard are placed below.

The Committee constituted in terms of the Resolution dated

26th October, 2017 of the Supreme Court Collegium, after going
through the judgments of the above-named recommendees in its
reports dated 22nd November, 2017 (copies placed below) has found
the judgments of the above-named recommendees as Very
Good/Good/Satisfactory and good and up to the mark/upto the
mark.

We have also taken note of certain complaints making

allegations against some of the above-named recommendees. We
do not see any merit in the aforesaid complaints. In our considered
view, the complaints deserve to be ignored, particularly, in the light of
positive material on record.

Taking into consideration the recommendation of the High

Court Collegium, views of our consultee-colleagues and the reports
of the Judgment Evaluation Committee, the Collegium finds all the
above-named Additional Judges suitable for appointment as
Permanent Judges.
THE INDIAN JURIST | WWW.THEINDIANJURIST.COM

In view of the above, the Collegium resolves to recommend

that Mr. Justices (1) Atul Shreedharan, (2) Sushrut Arvind
Dharmadhikari, (3) Vivek Rusia, (4) Anand Pathak, (5) Ved Prakash
Sharma, (6) Jagdish Prasad Gupta, (7) Anurag Kumar Shrivastava,
(8) Housla Prasad Singh, (9) Ashok Kumar Joshi, (10) Vivek
Agarwal, (11) Smt. Nandita Dubey, (12) Rajeev Kumar Dubey, (13)
Smt. Anjuli Palo, (14) Virender Singh, (15) S.K. Awasthi, (16) Vijay
Kumar Shukla, (17) G.S. Ahluwalia, and (18) Subodh Abhyankar,
Additional Judges, be appointed as Permanent Judges of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court.

( Dipak Misra ), C.J.I.

( J. Chelameswar ), J.

( Ranjan Gogoi ), J.

December 4, 2017.
THE INDIAN JURIST | WWW.THEINDIANJURIST.COM

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

This file relates to the proposal for appointment of following three

Additional Judges of the Chhattisgarh High Court as Permanent Judges of
that High Court:

1. Mr. Justice Sanjay Agrawal

2. Mr. Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

3. Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Shukla

Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Shukla (mentioned at Sl. No.3 above), whose
name was not approved by the Supreme Court Collegium vide Minutes
dated 19th May, 2017, has already retired on attaining age of
superannuation. As regards Mr. Justices Sanjay Agrawal and Rajendra
Chandra Singh Samant, the Supreme Court Collegium vide Minutes dated
19th May, 2017 has unanimously recommended that they be appointed as
Permanent Judges of the Chhattisgarh High Court.

The only issue in the file that now requires our consideration is with
regard to the evaluation of judgments of the above-named two Additional
Judges. Supreme Court Collegium vide Resolution dated 26th October,
2017, available on the official website of the Supreme Court, has taken a
decision that judgments of Additional Judges of the High Courts shall
henceforth be called for and evaluated by a Committee of two Honble
Judges of the Supreme Court. In terms of the said decision, a Committee
was constituted by the Chief Justice of India and the said Committee in its
Report dated 13th November, 2017 has found the Judgements of Mr.
Justices Sanjay Agrawal and Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, as good.
THE INDIAN JURIST | WWW.THEINDIANJURIST.COM

In view of the above, the Collegium resolves to recommend that the

proposal for appointment of Mr. Justices (1) Sanjay Agrawal and (2)
Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, Additional Judges as Permanent Judges
of the Chhattisgarh High Court be processed at the earliest.

( Dipak Misra ), C.J.I.

( J. Chelameswar ), J.

( Ranjan Gogoi ), J.

December 04, 2017.

THE INDIAN JURIST | WWW.THEINDIANJURIST.COM

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

This file relates to the proposal for appointment of following

two Additional Judges of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, as
Permanent Judges of that High Court:

1. Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma

2. Mr. Justice Chander Bhushan

The above recommendation has been unanimously made by

the Collegium of the Himachal Pradesh High Court on 6 th March,
2017, after taking into consideration the excellent performance of the
above-named Additional Judges, both in terms of the quality of their
judgments and the disposal of cases.

The above recommendation has the concurrence of the Chief

Minister and the Governor of the State of Himachal Pradesh.

In order to ascertain suitability of the above-named

recommendees for being appointed as Permanent Judges, we have
consulted our colleagues who are conversant with the affairs of the
Himachal Pradesh High Court. Copies of letters of their opinion
received in this regard are placed below.

The Committee constituted in terms of the Resolution dated

26th October, 2017 of the Supreme Court Collegium, after going
through the judgments of Mr. Justices Sandeep Sharma and
Chander Bhushan in its Report dated 14th November, 2017 (copy
placed below) has found their judgments as good and upto the
mark.

Taking into consideration the recommendation of the High

Court Collegium, the views of our consultee-colleagues and the
report of the Judgment Evaluation Committee, the Collegium finds
both the above-named Additional Judges suitable for being
appointed as Permanent Judges.
THE INDIAN JURIST | WWW.THEINDIANJURIST.COM

In view of the above, the Collegium resolves to recommend

that Mr. Justices (1) Sandeep Sharma, and (2) Chander Bhusan,
Additional Judges, be appointed as Permanent Judges of the
Himachal Pradesh High Court.

( Dipak Misra ), C.J.I.

( J. Chelameswar ), J.

( Ranjan Gogoi ), J.

December 4, 2017.
THE INDIAN JURIST | WWW.THEINDIANJURIST.COM

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

This file relates to the proposal for appointment of the following
ten Advocates as Judges of the Karnataka High Court:

S/Shri

1. Dixit Krishna Shripad

2. Shankar Ganapathi Pandit
3. Gurudas Shyamrao Kannur
4. Kuloor Arvind Kamath
5. Kanakatte Narayana Phanindra
6. Ramakrishna Devdas
7. Bhotanhosur Mallikarjuna Shyam Prasad
8. Siddappa Sunil Dutt Yadav
9. Maheshan Nagaprasanna, and
10. Kasaravalli Chythanya Keshavamurthy

The above recommendation was made by the then Chief Justice

of the Karnataka High Court on 13 th January, 2017, in consultation with
his two senior-most colleagues.

The Chief Minister while conveying his disagreement with the

above proposal has forwarded copies of certain communications
received from bodies of advocates expressing the concern that the
names recommended do not provide opportunity of representation to
the cross-sections of the society on the Bench of the High Court. He
has advised that the entire proposal be returned to the High Court for
reconsideration. Many other representations raising, inter alia, this
issue have also been placed before us. In this regard, it is important
to take note of the fact, as recorded in the Minutes dated 8 th December,
2016, 11th and 13th January, 2017, the High Court Collegium has taken
into account merit, experience, performance, character and conduct of
the recommendees. The Collegium has recorded that it has given
adequate representation to all the sections of the society to the extent
possible considering the merit of the respective candidates. Since the
High Court Collegium has already looked into and tested merit of such
representations, need for any further examination thereof stands
obviated.
THE INDIAN JURIST | WWW.THEINDIANJURIST.COM

The Governor of Karnataka has conveyed that some of the

candidates do not meet the requirement of efficiency in their
performance but has not specified the names of such recommendees
and the basis for forming such an opinion. We are in agreement with
the view of the Governor that the persons recommended may be
appointed only after a thorough objective assessment of their
performance and integrity. In this regard, it need not be emphasized
that assessment of performance of the persons recommended is done
objectively by the judiciary at High Court and Supreme Court level; and
as far as integrity, character and conduct etc. are concerned,
Intelligence Bureau, on verification, has reported that the above-
named recommendees enjoy a good personal and professional image
and nothing adverse has come to notice against their integrity.

In order to ascertain suitability of the above-named

recommendees for elevation to the High Court, we have consulted our
colleagues who are conversant with the affairs of the Karnataka High
Court. Copies of their letters of opinion received in this regard are
placed below.

As regards S/Shri (1) Gurudas Shyamrao Kannur, (2) Kuloor

Arvind Kamath, (3) Kanakatte Narayana Phanindra, and (4) Maheshan
Nagaprasanna (mentioned at Sl. No.3, 4, 5 and 9 above), having
regard to the material on record, we are of the view that the proposal
for their elevation deserves to be remitted to the Chief Justice of the
Karnataka High Court for fresh consideration by the present Collegium.

As regards Shri Kasaravalli Chythanya Keshavamurthy

(mentioned at Sl. No.10 above), having regard to the material on
record, we do not find him suitable for elevation.

We have looked into certain complaints making allegations

against some of the recommendees and questioning their suitability for
elevation to the High Court. Since, as per comments of the Intelligence
Bureau on one of these complaints the allegations are not established
or are incorrect, the said complaints deserve to be ignored.
THE INDIAN JURIST | WWW.THEINDIANJURIST.COM

Having regard to the material on record, including views of our

consultee-colleagues, and report of the Intelligence Bureau, we are of
the considered opinion that S/Shri (1) Dixit Krishna Shripad, (2)
Shankar Ganapathi Pandit, (3) Ramakrishna Devdas, (4) Bhotanhosur
Mallikarjuna Shyam Prasad, and (5) Siddappa Sunil Dutt Yadav,
Advocates, are suitable for being appointed as Judges of the
Karnataka High Court.
The Collegum, therefore, resolves to recommend that /Shri (1)
Dixit Krishna Shripad, (2) Shankar Ganapathi Pandit, (3) Ramakrishna
Devdas, (4) Bhotanhosur Mallikarjuna Shyam Prasad, and (5)
Siddappa Sunil Dutt Yadav, Advocates, be appointed as Judges of the
Karnataka High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the
existing practice.

( Dipak Misra ), C.J.I.

( J. Chelameswar ), J.

( Ranjan Gogoi ), J.

December 04, 2017.

THE INDIAN JURIST | WWW.THEINDIANJURIST.COM

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

This file relates to the proposal for appointment of the following eleven
Advocates, as Judges of the Madras High Court:

1. Shri A.V. Radhakrishnan

2. Shri C. Emalias
3. Ms. P.T.Asha
4. Shri M. Nirmal Kumar
5. Shri Subramonium Prasad
6. Shri B. Pugalendhi
7. Shri Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
8. Shri N. Anand Venkatesh
9. Shri G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
10. Shri Krishnan Ramasamy
11. Shri C. Saravanan

The above recommendation has been unanimously made by the then

Chief Justice of the Madras High Court on 19 th December, 2016 in
consultation with his two senior-most colleagues.

The Chief Minister and the Governor of the State of Tamil Nadu have
concurred with the proposal for elevation of all the above-named
recommendees.

In order to ascertain suitability of the above-named recommendees

for elevation to the High Court, we have consulted our colleagues
conversant with the affairs of the Madras High Court. Copies of letters of
opinion of our consultee-colleagues received in this regard are placed
below.

Intelligence Bureau has reported, inter alia, that all the above-named
recommendees enjoy good personal and professional image and that
nothing adverse has come to notice against their integrity.
THE INDIAN JURIST | WWW.THEINDIANJURIST.COM

As regards Shri A.V. Radhakrishnan (mentioned at Sl. No.1 above),

he is more than 57 years of age. Even on the date of recommendation of
the High Court Collegium he had crossed the maximum age limit of 55
years prescribed for Advocates recommended for elevation to the High
Court Bench. Having regard to above, he is not found suitable for elevation
to the High Court Bench.

As regards Shri C. Emalias (mentioned at Sl. No.2 above), as per

record, though as on date he is more than the maximum age limit of 55
years prescribed for Advocates recommended for elevation to the High
Court Bench, he was well within the said prescribed age limit on the date of
recommendation of the High Court Collegium. Thus, his name can be
considered for elevation.

As regards Shri B. Pugalendhi (mentioned at Sl.No.6 above), certain

adverse but unconfirmed inputs have been received by the Collegium. The
Collegium considers it appropriate to get the same verified before taking
final decision on the proposal for his elevation. Consideration of the
proposal for his elevation can wait till the verification is got done by the
Collegium. In that view of the matter, the proposal for elevation of Shri B.
Pugalendhi is deferred for the present.

We have taken note of certain complaints against the

recommendations made by the High Court Collegium. We find that the
allegations made therein are frivolous and / or malicious in nature and
appear to have been made with an ulterior motive to put spoke in the wheel
of judicial appointment process. In our considered opinion, hardly any
credence can be attached to such complaints, particularly in the light of
positive material regarding suitability of the recommendees, whose names
are being approved by this Collegium.

Considering the material on record, including the views of our

consultee-colleagues and the report of the Intelligence Bureau, we find that
S/Shri (1) C. Emalias, (2) Ms. P.T.Asha, (3) M. Nirmal Kumar, (4)
Subramonium Prasad, (5) Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, (6) N. Anand
Venkatesh, (7) G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, (8) Krishnan Ramasamy, and (9) C.
Saravanan, Advocates are suitable for being appointed as Judges of the
Madras High Court.
THE INDIAN JURIST | WWW.THEINDIANJURIST.COM

Having regard to the above, the Collegium resolves to recommend

that S/Shri (1) C. Emalias, (2) Ms. P.T.Asha, (3) M. Nirmal Kumar, (4)
Subramonium Prasad, (5) Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, (6) N. Anand
Venkatesh, (7) G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, (8) Krishnan Ramasamy, and (9) C.
Saravanan, Advocates be appointed as Judges of the Madras High Court.
Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice.

( Dipak Misra ), C.J.I.

( J. Chelameswar ), J.

( Ranjan Gogoi ), J.

December 4, 2017.