Bengal justices denied elevation to Top Court

13-05-2022

Justices Biswanath Somadder and Dipankar Dutta respectively held the primary and second ranks on the all-India seniority list of supreme court judges

Two recent judicial appointments to the Supreme Court seem to possess denied two judges from Bengal — Justice Biswanath Somadder and Justice Dipankar Dutta — the prospect of eventual elevation to justice of India, sources in Calcutta supreme court have said.

Justices Somadder and Dutta, chief justices of the high courts in Sikkim and Mumbai, respectively, held the primary and second ranks on the all-India seniority list of supreme court judges.

“Had the conventional practice of appointing judges to the Supreme Court on the premise of seniority been followed, the elevation of Justices Somadder and Dutta to the Supreme Court would are natural. Both of them would are in line to become jurist of India had they been elevated to the apex court this point,” a source said.

Another senior judge in line to become CJI — Andhra Pradesh state supreme court magistrate Prashant Mishra — ranked three on the all-India seniority list of judicature judges. Justice Mishra too has did not make it to the Supreme Court now, the source said.

In the latest round of judicial appointments, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, jurist of Gauhati tribunal, and Justice J.B. Padriwala, one in every of the judges in Gujarat state supreme court, have made it to the apex court.

After the appointment of those two judges on Monday, the Supreme Court got its full strength of 34 judges. The number, however, dropped to 33 on Tuesday with the retirement of Justice Vineet Saran.

“Justice Dhulia was 30th on the all-India seniority list of judicature judges while Justice Padriwala was 49th. Even among the judges in Gujarat supreme court, Justice Padriwala’s rank was third,” a source said.

Although seniority isn't the only criterion for appointing Supreme Court judges, legal circles in Calcutta court feel that the collegium’s decision has cost Bengal.

Justice Somadder, who became a judge of Calcutta court in 2006, became its acting justice in 2019 and was transferred as a judge of Allahabad state supreme court the identical year. On April 27, 2020, he was appointed judge of Meghalaya judicature. He became jurist of Sikkim tribunal on October 12 last year.

Justice Dutta was elevated to the bench of Calcutta state supreme court as a permanent judge in 2006 and was appointed judge of Bombay court on April 28, 2020.

“There is every possibility of their elevation to the Supreme Court someday. But with the collegium ignoring them during this round, they're unlikely to create it to CJI. Born in 1963, Justice Somadder are in commission till 2028 whereas Justice Dutta will have a stint till 2030 as a Supreme Court judge.… Both were in line to become magistrate of India but, sadly, that doesn't seem to be happening,” a source said.

The retirement age for top court judges is 62 while Supreme Court judges superannuate at 65. The last CJI from Calcutta state supreme court was Justice Altamas Kabir, who retired on July 18, 2013.

Since another selection criterion --- like giving representation to unrepresented regions or communities --- can't be invoked to clarify both the appointments that are made, the collegium’s decision has raised questions.

“Justice Dhulia’s appointment on the representation ground are often justified as he's from Uttarakhand, but Justice Padriwala is from Gujarat and already there are two judges from the state,” the source said.

The source recalled the controversy surrounding Justice Padriwala's remarks against reservations as a judge of Gujarat judicature, which had prompted 58 Rajya Sabha MPs to maneuver a petition seeking his impeachment in December 2015. Justice Padriwala later expunged the remarks he had made against reservation and no effort was made to require forward the notice of impeachment against him.

Other sources said judicial veterans hold Justice Pardiwala in high esteem, vouching for his impeccable integrity and his unwillingness to mince words when it involves safeguarding the interests of folk.

In May 2020, Justice Pardiwala, heading a bench, had compared the coronavirus situation in Gujarat to the “sinking Titanic” and described it as “one of the worst-affected states within the country”.