Advocate Shwetasree Majumdar Withdraws Consent For Judgeship After Centre’s Inaction On Collegium Proposal
Advocate Shwetasree Majumdar has withdrawn her consent for appointment as a decide of the Delhi Excessive Courtroom after the Centre saved the Supreme Courtroom Collegium’s advice of her identify pending for almost a yr.
She confirmed the event to LiveLaw, although didn’t disclose any causes for her choice.
On August 21, 2024, the Supreme Courtroom Collegium, then headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, had recommended Majumdar’s identify together with two different advocates, Ajay Digpaul and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar. Whereas the Central Authorities, on January 6, 2025, cleared the appointments of the opposite two advocates who have been beneficial in the identical decision, Majumdar’s identify was left pending with none causes being assigned.
Majumdar, an alumna of the Nationwide Legislation College of India College, Bangalore, is thought for her apply within the subject of mental property rights within the Delhi Excessive Courtroom authentic aspect. She has been appointed Amicus Curiae by varied benches of the Delhi Excessive Courtroom and served on the six-member committee chargeable for drafting the Delhi Excessive Courtroom (Authentic Aspect) Guidelines, 2018. She can be a Panelist with the World Mental Property Group (WIPO).
This isn’t the one occasion of the Union Authorities failing to behave well timed on the collegium proposals. The Centre is but to clear the appointment of Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal to the Delhi Excessive Courtroom, regardless of the Supreme Courtroom having reiterated his identify method again in January 2023, after overruling objections associated to his sexual orientation. As per the legislation, a reiteration made by the Collegium is binding on the Centre.
In February 2022, Senior Advocate Adithya Sondhi also withdrew his consent for the judgeship after the Centre refused to behave on the Collegium’s advice for over a yr and on the Collegium’s reiteration for almost 5 months.
The Supreme Courtroom, on its judicial aspect, whereas listening to a petition regarding delays in judicial appointments, has expressed concern over the Centre’s selective withholding of approvals. The Courtroom noticed that such an method may deter competent attorneys from consenting to judgeship, because the uncertainty surrounding appointments might adversely affect their skilled apply.
“In suggestions made lately, selective appointments have been made. That is additionally a matter of concern. If some appointments are made, whereas others should not, the inter-se seniority is disturbed. That is hardly conducive to persuading profitable attorneys to affix the bench,” the Courtroom observed in its order handed in November 2023.
In a decision handed in March 2023, the Supreme Courtroom Collegium additionally recorded its unhappiness over the Centre withholding sure names selectively. Being attentive to the truth that the approval of John Sathyan, whose identify was reiterated for the Madras Excessive Courtroom, was withheld, many different subsequently beneficial names have been authorized, the Collegium observed : “The names which have been beneficial earlier in level of time together with the reiterated names ought to not be withheld or ignored as this disturbs their seniority whereas these beneficial later steal march on them. Lack of seniority of candidates beneficial earlier in level of time has been famous by the Collegium and is a matter of grave concern”.
