Posts of 3 HC CJs designate edited on ‘sensitive information’ of govt | India News – Times of India

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court bench on Tuesday reconsidered its July 11 recommendation for the appointment of chief justices to seven high courts, finding the “sensitive information” provided by the government valuable. Three of them were referred to other high courts.
The college led by CJI DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai, replaced the earlier recommendations of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait, who was to be Chief Justice of the J&K and Ladakh High Court; GS Sandhawalia, who was recommended as Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court; and Tashi Rabstan, who was recommended as Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court.
The board’s decision on Tuesday recommended the appointment of Judge Indra Prasanna Mukerjia judge of Calcutta HC, as CJ of Meghalaya HC in place of Justice Rabstan. Justice Rabstan is now recommended to head his parent HC of J&K and Ladakh and has less than a year to go before his retirement.
The bench has withdrawn its recommendation for appointment of Justice Kait, who belongs to the Dalit community, as Chief Justice of J&K and Ladakh and recommended his appointment as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh HC.
Justice Sandhawalia will no longer be the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh but will now head the Himachal Pradesh HC after the retirement of Justice Rajiv Shakher on October 18. On July 11, the bench had recommended the appointment of Justice Shakdher as Chief Justice of HP HC, where he will now serve a tenure of less than a month.
The bench said the other recommendations of July 11 would remain intact, including the proposal to appoint Justice Manmohan as Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, Justice Shakdher as Chief Justice of the HP High Court, Justice Nitin M Jamdar as Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court and Justice KR Sriram as Chief Justice of the Madras High Court.
Last week, Attorney General R Venkataramani A bench headed by CJI Chandrachud had told that the government had serious and sensitive material to justify the delay in implementing the college’s recommendations for appointment of CJs to seven HCs. The AG had said that since the material was sensitive, he would place it in a sealed cover before the CJI.