Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant has defended the functioning of the Supreme Court Collegium, stating that it was often subjected to casual criticism by those unfamiliar with the judiciary’s functioning and the rigorous process followed for judicial appointments.
Addressing a felicitation ceremony organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) to welcome the newly appointed Supreme Court judges, the CJI said on Tuesday that the Collegium adopted an objective and merit-based approach while recommending appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts, taking into account a wide range of institutional and constitutional considerations.
SCBA organised the ceremony to welcome Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Justice Arun Palli and Justice V Mohana, who were sworn in on June 2.
Referring to the Collegium system, the CJI stated that the process of selecting judges involves detailed deliberations on several objective parameters, including judicial merit, performance, length of service, previous assignments, professional experience, integrity, inclusiveness and diversity.
He added that the same principles were applied while recommending appointments of Chief Justices of High Courts. Expressing confidence in the newly elevated judges, Justice Kant said the Collegium had taken an objective and merit-based decision and that the judges were expected to make significant contributions to the institution.
The CJI also highlighted the strong institutional relationship between the Supreme Court Bar and the Bench, observing that the quality of justice delivered by the Apex Court was strengthened by mutual trust, cooperation and effective assistance from the Bar.
Drawing from his experience of serving in the Supreme Court for more than seven years, he noted that advocates before the Court have developed the ability to provide effective assistance within limited time, while judges have equally evolved the capacity to quickly grasp complex legal issues despite the Court’s heavy docket.
He observed that judges elevated to the Supreme Court shoulder greater constitutional responsibilities because they become part of the country’s highest constitutional court, which bears the responsibility of preserving and strengthening public confidence in the justice delivery system.
According to the CJI, the Supreme Court is expected not only to adjudicate civil and criminal disputes but also to develop constitutional jurisprudence and lay down binding legal principles. He expressed confidence that the newly appointed judges would discharge these institutional responsibilities effectively.
The CJI made a special reference to Justice V Mohana, noting that her previous experience as a successful advocate before the Supreme Court would assist her in adapting quickly to her new constitutional role, given her familiarity with the functioning of the Supreme Court Bar.
During the course of the day, the CJI also appeared to respond to recent criticism directed at the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment in the Delhi Metro arbitration dispute.
The observations were made while a Bench led by him was hearing proceedings arising out of the curative petition filed by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited (DMRC) against Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL).
When Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing for DMRC, sought an adjournment on the ground that discussions were continuing, the CJI remarked that the judgment debtor appeared to have acquired several influential supporters and observed that public statements were being made in support of a party that had lost the litigation. The remarks were widely viewed as an indirect response to recent public criticism of the 2024 judgment.
The comments followed observations made by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan during a lecture on arbitration law, where he reportedly stated that the Supreme Court’s April 10, 2024 decision in Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. had adversely affected India’s arbitration framework.
Justice Bhuyan had observed that the exercise of the Supreme Court’s curative jurisdiction to set aside a nearly Rs 2,800 crore arbitral award, after the award had survived challenges under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution and a review petition, raised important questions regarding judicial intervention in arbitral awards.
According to Justice Bhuyan, the judgment marked an unprecedented exercise of curative jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, as the Court effectively re-examined the merits of the arbitral award during the fifth round of judicial scrutiny despite observing that curative jurisdiction should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances.
He further expressed concern that the judgment had generated uncertainty within the arbitration community and had implications for India’s aspiration to become a global arbitration hub.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the Union Finance Ministry’s Office Memorandum dated June 3, 2024, which advised government departments and public sector undertakings against routinely incorporating arbitration clauses in contracts involving disputes exceeding Rs 10 crore.
The memorandum observed that arbitration involving government entities had often failed to achieve finality because arbitral awards were frequently challenged before courts, thereby diminishing arbitration’s effectiveness as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism and encouraging greater use of mediation instead.
The 2024 judgment had allowed DMRC’s curative petition and set aside the arbitral award in favour of DAMEPL on the ground that the award suffered from patent illegality and that the earlier restoration of the award by the Supreme Court had resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice.
The post CJI Surya Kant defends Collegium appointments, responds to criticism over Delhi Metro arbitration ruling appeared first on India Legal.