The Supreme Court collegium elevates 6 advocates as Delhi High Court judges

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the names of six advocates for Judgeship at the Delhi High Court.

The names of the 6 Advocates are as under:

Mr Jasmeet Singh

Mr Amit Bansal

Ms Tara Vitasta Ganju

Mr Anish Dayal

Mr Amit Sharma 

Ms Mini Pushkarna

Among the Advocates elevated as High Court Judges,  Mr Jasmeet Singh is currently a Standing Counsel in the panel of Central Government. He has previously worked with renowned law firms such as  Herbert Smith LLP and Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas among others.

Mr Amit Bansal has around 20 years of experience in matters pertaining to commercial litigation and Arbitration while Mr Anish Dayal has been working as an Independent legal practice for around 24 years. 

The collegium took the decision in its meeting held on August 17, 2020 in a bid to increase the total number of Judges at the Delhi High Court, which is facing a vacancy deficit, to hear the growing number of pending cases.

These recommendations would increase the tally of Delhi High Court Judges to 38.

The Apex Court collegium that decides on the matters of appointment of the High Court  Judges started its deliberations last week to speed up the appointment of Judges in other High Courts as well.

The 5 member appointing panel is headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) S.A. Bobde. The other panel members include Justice Ramana, Justice Mishra, R.F. Nariman and U.U. Lalit.

What happens next 

The recommended names of the Advocates will be sent to the Central Government for perusal. The Central Government will resend the file after verifying the list of proposed names.

The collegium takes note of the suggestions and recommendations made my Central Government and resends the file for a final approval. The Central Government is obligated to give its assent if the collegium sends the same names again.

The collegium system which was a result of the three judges cases has received its fair share of criticisms in the past owing to the lack of transparency in the appointment process.