'I Fought Tooth & Nail For Suo Motu Designation In Good Cases': Justice Surya Kant Recalls P&H HC Lawyer's Senior Designation

While hearing the PIL relating to the appointment of Information Commissioners, Justice Surya Kant of the Supreme Court today shared an anecdote about how he, as a judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, batted for the designation of an advocate of the Punjab and Haryana High Court even though the lawyer did not formally apply for said designation.

During today's hearing of the CIC appointments case, the Justice Kant-led bench was informed by Advocate Prashant Bhushan (for petitioners) that the Union was considering appointing candidates who had not even applied. In this regard, Justice Kant opined that appointment of someone who has not applied may not necessarily be a bad thing.

The judge reminisced that he(as a HC judge) advocated for the designation of Anupam Gupta as a senior advocate, and alongwith a former judge, convinced others that suo motu power be exercised to designate lawyers in reasonable cases.

"Let's not doubt everything. Sometimes what happens is...there may be a person of eminence. He may not apply because he does not want to be subject to [...] there are lawyers who say we will not submit applications for being designated as senior...earlier also in the Rules, and probably now also the Supreme Court on judicial side has explained that let there be a power of designating suo motu. Let me give you an example. Mr Anupam Gupta in P&H High Court never applied. I fought tooth and nail that this power of suo motu should be exercised in some good cases, in reasonable cases. Justice Randhawa (former judge) supported like anything. Both of us then ultimately persuaded the entire House that we should exercise suo motu power. We did it. It's not that he does not have critics. There are people who will criticize him also, because nobody is spared in the system", said Justice Kant.

For context, Anupam Gupta is a senior lawyer practicing at the Punjab and Haryana High Court. He was designated as a senior advocate in 2012. He was also the counsel of Liberhan Commission on the destruction of Babri Masjid on 6 December 1992.

The Court was hearing a PIL filed by activist Anjali Bhardwaj regarding delays and lack of transparency in appointments to the Central and State Information Commissions.

Despite the petitioners' insistence on disclosure of names of candidates being considered for appointment, the Court today declined to direct the Union Government to publicly disclose shortlisted names, observing that there was “no reason to doubt” that the Centre would follow the guidelines earlier laid down by the Court for transparent appointments under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

Case Title: ANJALI BHARDWAJ AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., MA 1979/2019 in W.P.(C) No. 436/2018

Related - CIC Appointments | 'No Reason To Doubt Union': Supreme Court Refuses To Direct Disclosure Of Shortlisted Candidates' Names