Home / Latest News / Supreme Court to have Four more Justices, including Jayalalithaa’s Counsel L. Nageswara Rao

Supreme Court to have Four more Justices, including Jayalalithaa’s Counsel L. Nageswara Rao


Chief Justices of Allahabad, Madhya Pradesh and Kerala HCs D.Y. Chandrachud, Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar and Ashok Bhushan also nominated.

Supreme Court to have Four more Justices
Supreme Court to have Four more Justices

The Supreme Court Collegium has now recommended senior advocate L. Nageswara Rao, counsel for Tamil Nadu CM Jayalalithaa in a disproportionate assets case in the Supreme Court, for his appointment as Supreme Court judge. Mr. Rao had also served as Additional Solicitor General in the Supreme Court for the UPA-II government and the present NDA government before he resigned from the post.

Mr. Rao is currently spearheading the Tamil Nadu government’s objections against the conduct of National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test in 2016-17.

If these appointments goes through, Mr. Rao would be the seventh person in legal history of India to be directly appointed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court collegium has also recommended the names of Allahabad High Court Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Madhya Pradesh High Court Chief Justice Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar and Kerala High Court Chief Justice Ashok Bhushan for appointment as Supreme Court judges.

The three names have reached the Ministry of Law and Justice, GOI, which is processing their files, sources in the Law ministry said.

The recommendations comes only after a 15-month hiatus since the appointment of Justice Amitava Roy to the Supreme Court in February 2015. These three would be the first appointments at the Supreme Court since the collegium system of judicial appointments was restored.

A Constitution Bench of the apex court had in October 2015 struck down the NDA government’s National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) laws meant to replace the 22-year-old collegium system and give equal say to politicians in appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts.

These appointments, if finally done, would further augment the judicial strength of the Supreme Court from the present 25 to 28. The SC collegium recommendations follow Chief Justice Thakur’s emotional outpouring of the “impossible burden” shouldered by a skeletal number of judges who work day in and day out to clear pending cases.

The three appointments would also bring relief in a year in which the apex court would see five of its judges retiring — Justice F.M.I. Kalifulla in July, Justices V. Gopala Gowda and C. Nagappan in October, Justices Anil R. Dave and Shiva Kirti Singh in November.

Any more delay in appointment of Supreme Court judges, even as the government is in the process of finalizing the Memorandum of Procedure for Appointment of Judges, would have reduced the apex court’s strength to mere 20 by the end of 2016.

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, now in UP, hails from Maharashtra and is a graduate from St. Stephen’s College. He did his post-graduation in Law and is also a Doctor of Juridical Sciences from Harvard,UK.

Justice A.M. Khanwilkar too hails from Maharashtra and has been the top judge of the State’s High Court since 2013.

Justice Ashok Bhushan comes from Uttar Pradesh and was sworn in as the State’s Chief Justice in March 2015.

The last such appointments directly from the Bar were that of Justices Rohinton F. Nariman and U.U. Lalit after a gap of 15 years.

The first to be appointed directly from the Bar was Justice S.M. Sikri in 1963. He also became the Chief Justice of India in January 1971 and retired in April 1973.

Justice S.C. Roy was then appointed judge in 1971 and he died after holding the post for four months.

In 1988, Justice Kuldip Singh was similarly appointed directly from the Bar. He retired from SC in December 1996.

Three years later in Jan 1999, Justice Santosh Hegde was appointed Supreme Court judge and he retired in June 2005.

Facebook Comments

Check Also

Delhi High Court

HC raps Municipal Corporation: You are trying to avoid Transparency in Grievance Redressal Mechanism

March 24,2018: High Court pointed out that despite its earlier orders, a status report had not been filed. This, it opined, suggested that “the respondents are trying to avoid transparency in the grievance redressal mechanism”. Delhi HC has castigated East ...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest laws

Join our mailing list to receive the latest laws news and updates from our team.