New Delhi: No member of the Bar “deserves to be strung along indefinitely”, senior advocate Aditya Sondhi told ThePrint in an exclusive interview, three weeks after he withdrew consent for his elevation as a judge of the Karnataka High Court.
Sondhi withdrew consent on 4 February as the year-long impasse over his appointment between the Supreme Court collegium and the Narendra Modi government was gradually beginning to affect him “personally”, he said in an email interview.
While he didn’t receive any official communication on why the Modi government opposed his name, Sondhi suspects his remarks at a public event against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) could be a reason.
“The grapevine tells me it could be on account of a public lecture I delivered in January 2020 where I doubted the constitutionality of the CAA. But there is no way for me to corroborate this,” Sondhi told ThePrint.
He rejected the suggestion that his affiliation with the erstwhile Congress government in Karnataka is the reason behind Centre’s resistance.
Sondhi was the state’s additional advocate general — a counsel who represents the government in power in the high court and the Supreme Court — between 2016 and 2018.
“I may have held the post, but I don’t have any political ideology. I am proud to be apolitical,” he said.
Also Read: How Lokayuktas lost their teeth: Seats empty in some states, powers diluted in others
Sondhi’s name not cleared, two others given nod
An alumnus of the National Law School of India University in Bengaluru, Sondhi is a first-generation lawyer. He was, therefore, honoured and humbled when the HC collegium in January 2020 sought his consent for his elevation from the Bar to the Bench.
Sondhi was among three advocates whose names were approved by the Karnataka HC collegium in February 2020, followed by SC’s nod in February 2021. While the other two candidates were appointed on 25 March last year, the Modi government sent back Sondhi’s file to the SC collegium, which reiterated its proposal in September 2021.
However, the Centre hasn’t notified Sondhi’s appointment so far.
According to the memorandum of procedure — a rule book governing judicial appointments to HCs and the SC — on receiving the recommendations from the SC collegium, the Centre can either finalise the appointments or return the names in case of objections. But if the SC collegium re-approves the returned name, the Centre is under obligation to make the appointment.
According to Sondhi, he expected “hiccups” when he consented to his elevation, but never fathomed that the Centre would have reservations over his name.
“As a first-generation lawyer with no political allegiance or lobbying, I knew that there could be some hiccups in the consideration of my name,” he said. However, once the SC collegium cleared the recommendation, he felt the Centre would honour it within a reasonable time.
But the year-long standoff over his name between the top court collegium and Centre made him introspect and withdraw his consent in the “interest of the institution”.
“I felt confident that the impasse would be soon broken when the SC collegium reiterated my name. This was keeping in mind the law and tradition in such instances. However, that was not to be, and it became clear as daylight that the stalemate would continue as long as I did not withdraw from the field,” Sondhi said.
“I waited for a full year after the recommendation, which included five months after the reiteration, before deciding to withdraw my consent. It was something I did after much introspection,” he added.
On whether the collegium has accepted his decision, he said: “My withdrawal is unconditional and the same has been communicated to the SC collegium. But I have not received any intimation from the SC collegium on the matter as of now.”
‘Certainly a price to pay professionally’
According to Sondhi, a lawyer is expected to make several “sacrifices” on the professional front once they consent to judgeship, including giving up appearances in some courts. However, on the advice of the then Chief Justice of the Karnataka HC, Sondhi continued to appear in the high court.
“It proved to be very valuable advice. But a senior lawyer does not get briefed as regularly as earlier, as the Bar tends to think the ‘recomendee’ has almost crossed over to the other side,” Sondhi explained.
The senior counsel himself chose not to take up several matters of delicacy, owing to the situation he was in, and also stopped appearing in trial courts and tribunals that were not headed by high court or Supreme Court judges.
“I also stepped down from various trusts and committees that I was part of. There is certainly a price to pay professionally. But the limbo affects one personally more than professionally,” Sondhi added.
He refused to comment on whether the collegium has failed to take a stand on his behalf, or on behalf of others whose names have not been processed for elevation despite the SC’s reiteration.
“I can only say that I have tried to do the right thing, not just for me personally, but also for the institution,” he said.
However, he acknowledged the standoff uncovered the “rough edges” in the collegium system of appointment of judges, and said that it should be revisited to smoothen the process, particularly when it comes to a “deadlock between the government and the collegium”.
“This would serve the larger cause of justice delivery,” he explained.
Sondhi also believes that the executive should have a say in judicial appointments, as it already does at various stages of the process. However, a say in the matter “ought not to become a veto”.
(Edited by Amit Upadhyaya)
This article has been updated to correct a factual error, that the HC collegium asked Sondhi for consent in January 2020 and approved his name in February that year. The error is regretted.
Also Read: Supreme Court’s 9 new judges — 3 women, 1 OBC, 1 SC and from 9 different states