New Delhi: Views made by a senior advocate have no bearing on the competence, ability or credentials of his junior who is a potential candidate to become a high court judge, the Supreme Court collegium has observed, while recommending the elevation of a lawyer to the Bombay High Court.
In a meeting held Tuesday, the three-member collegium approved three names for the Bombay High Court — Shailesh Pramod Brahme, Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla and Jitendra Shantilal Jain. It also cleared the appointment of an additional judge of the Gauhati High Court — Justice Robin Phukan — as a permanent judge of the same court.
The collegium is headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and also comprises justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph.
According to the resolution uploaded in connection with the three names cleared for the Bombay High Court, the collegium has noted that, in the case of Pooniwalla, the Intelligence Bureau (IB) had flagged an article written by a former senior in 2020, where the latter had expressed concerns over the alleged lack of freedom of speech or expression in the country in the preceding 5 to 6 years.
However, the IB inputs carried nothing adverse against Pooniwalla regarding his integrity or suitability, records the resolution.
With regard to his senior’s article, the collegium opined that a junior counsel associated with the chamber of a senior on the original side (civil side) is not engaged in an employer-employee relationship with them.
While juniors are associated with the chamber, they are free to do their own work, and, for all intents and purposes, are entitled to independent legal practice.
Noting that the consultee-judges have backed Pooniwalla’s name for elevation, the collegium resolution records: “The candidate has an extensive practice at the Bar and is specialised in commercial law. The candidate professes Parsi Zoroastrianism and belongs to a minority community. Keeping in mind the above aspects and on an overall consideration of the proposal for his elevation, the collegium is of the considered opinion that Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla is suitable for appointment as a judge of the High Court of Bombay.”
Factors that make a good judgment
In a separate resolution, proposing Justice Phukan’s appointment as a permanent judge, the collegium has for the first time listed out the factors that are taken into account while evaluating the judgments of judges who are first appointed as an additional judge, for their confirmation as permanent judge.
According to the resolution, there are 11 factors that make for a good judgment. These are articulation, structure of the judgment, with proper recording of facts. Clear identification of issues and reasoned answers to them, due consideration of settled legal propositions, application of mind to the submissions made by lawyers in a case, adequate reference to the material and relevant pleadings, appreciation of circumstantial evidence and appropriate compliance with “sentencing”.
The collegium took note of a report submitted by a Supreme Court committee that assessed Justice Phukan’s judgments on the above-mentioned factors, while confirming him as a permanent judge of the Gauhati HC.
(Edited by Sunanda Ranjan)