Jharkhand government approached the Supreme Court for contempt action against the Modi government, know why

The Jharkhand government has approached the Supreme Court against the central government. According to a report by our colleague Times of India, the Hemant Soren government has alleged that the central government is deliberately delaying the implementation of the July 11 proposal of the Supreme Court Collegium, which proposes to appoint Justice MS Ramachandra Rao as the Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court.

The state government has said in its petition that the high court has been without a chief justice for two months since Justice BR Sarangi retired on July 19. The petition further said that the Supreme Court Collegium headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud had sent a recommendation to fill the vacancy. The Collegium had recommended to the central government that the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court be transferred as the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court.

The Jharkhand government says that despite more than two months having passed, the central government is 'deliberately' not taking any action on the recommendations of the Supreme Court Collegium. This situation shows that the central government is disregarding the decisions of the Supreme Court.

The Jharkhand government says the Centre's deliberate inaction on the collegium's proposal is also violative of Article 216 of the Constitution. This article states, “Every High Court shall have a Chief Justice and such other Judges…” Constitutional courts have the power to initiate contempt of court proceedings against any person who wilfully disobeys or ignores the judicial orders of such courts.

However, it remains to be seen whether the recommendations of the Supreme Court Collegium can be given the status of judicial orders. If that happens, the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act may be invoked if the central government disagrees or delays implementation.

While insisting on speedy implementation of the Collegium recommendations, the Supreme Court had once warned the Centre of contempt of court proceedings. Then Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, who is now retired, had warned the Centre that contempt of court proceedings could be initiated against them. However, he did not take any action on it.

The Supreme Court had decided in the 1990s through three separate decisions that the appointment of judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts would be done only through the Collegium. But the Supreme Court did not set any time limit as to when the Collegium's recommendation should be approved. Apart from this, the central government cannot reject the decision of the Collegium, but it can certainly demand reconsideration by raising those issues which it feels were not taken into account by the Collegium or which were not given sufficient consideration.

CJI Chandrachud on Thursday informed Attorney General R. Venkataramani about the filing of a contempt petition by Jharkhand against the Centre. The CJI gave this information when the Attorney General was requesting that the hearing on the PIL seeking timely implementation of the Collegium recommendations be deferred on Friday. Petitioner Harsh Vihar Singh has sought timely implementation of the Collegium recommendations regarding the appointment and transfer of High Court judges.

The Attorney General told the bench of CJI and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra that he will inform the High Court about the appointment of the Chief Justice next week. The Supreme Court asked the Attorney General to request an adjournment again on Friday as the matter has already been listed.

On July 11, the Supreme Court Collegium had recommended the transfer of Justice Rao from the Himachal Pradesh High Court to Jharkhand, and also sent a proposal to the Centre for the appointment of Chief Justices in seven high courts. However, the Centre had requested the Collegium to reconsider some of the recommendations, citing some 'sensitive material'.

Based on this material, the Collegium had on September 17 modified its proposals on the appointment of chief justices of three high courts — Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.