On Tuesday, the Supreme Court Collegium reportedly overruled the Intelligence Bureau’s (IB) objection to the selection of attorney Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla as a Bombay High Court judge.
The Collegium decided to recommend Pooniwalla for a judgeship, although it made a note in its resolution that IB had objected to Pooniwalla’s nomination by drawing attention to an article published by an attorney under whom Pooniwalla had previously worked as a junior.
The aforementioned piece, which was written in 2020, expressed worries about the country’s purported lack of freedom of speech and expression over the previous five to six years. The Collegium declared in its resolution that Pooniwalla’s personal competence, skill, or qualifications for nomination as a judge of the High Court are unaffected by the opinions made by a former superior of his.
Supreme Court reccomends Lawyer Firdosh Pooniwalla for Judgeship in High Court of Bombay despite Intelligence Agency flagging his opinion piece in 2020 about lack of freedom of speech in India. “Does not affect his competence,” collegium says. pic.twitter.com/UsmY8YsYy4
— LawBeat (@LawBeatInd) May 3, 2023
“Moreover, the Collegium notes that Shri Pooniwalla and his former senior practise on the Original side of the High Court of Bombay. Junior counsel associated with the chamber of a senior on the Original side is not engaged in a relationship of employer-employee with their senior. While juniors are associated with the chamber, they are free to do their own work and for all intents and purposes, are entitled to independent legal practice. No adverse comments reflecting on the suitability of the candidate for elevation have been made in the file,” the resolution said.
The Intelligence Bureau stated in its report that he has a good personal and professional image, that nothing unfavourable has been discovered regarding his integrity, and that he is not affiliated with any political party. The Collegium, which was composed of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, and KM Joseph, also took note of this information. He is qualified for promotion, according to the consultee-judges’ opinions.
“No adverse comments reflecting on the suitability of the candidate for elevation have been made in the file. The candidate has extensive practice at the Bar and is specialized in commercial law. The candidate professes Parsi Zoroastrianism and belongs to a minority community; the resolution noted.
Belongs to Minority Community listed as one of the reasons for elevation by Collegium while elevating lawyer Firdosh Pooniwalla to judgeship in Bombay HC. pic.twitter.com/CNlPIA6nMC
— LawBeat (@LawBeatInd) May 3, 2023
The collegium also suggested Jitendra Shantilal Jain and Shailesh Pramod Brahme, attorneys, for appointment as judges in the Bombay high court in addition to Pooniwalla. Additionally, the IB had also raised a concern about Jain’s work in a senior taxation official’s chambers about 20 years ago. In this regard, the Collegium stated, “Enquiries have indicated that while it is correct that the candidate had ceased working in the chamber of that senior, he subsequently joined the chamber of a noted senior counsel at the Bar. The fact of the candidate having left the chamber of a senior earlier has no bearing on his ability, competence or integrity.”
About Brahme, the Collegium said that he is a competent lawyer with experience of about thirty years of practice in civil, criminal, constitutional and service law cases and that no adverse inputs were received against him.
Notably, this is not the first time when the Collegium has publicly rejected the IB objections. In January, the SC Collegium had presumably made public the reasons for rejecting the IB objections. Regarding the elevation of Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal, Advocate Somasekhar Sundaresan, and Advocate John Satyan, the Collegium resolution addressed IB objections.
The Collegium stated that the IB’s objections to Kirpal’s sexual orientation and his foreign partner had no bearing on his recommendation for promotion to the Delhi High Court. The Collegium also dismissed the IB argument that Somasekhar Sundaresan (recommended for the Bombay High Court) had published a piece critical of the government.
When it came to John Sathyan (who was recommended for the Madras High Court), the Collegium overruled the IB’s argument that he had uploaded a piece online that was critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Even though the collegium reiterated these names in the January resolutions, the Central Government has not yet notified them of their appointment.
Later, Kiren Rijiju, the minister of law, expressed his displeasure over the Collegium’s decision to make IB inputs public. “Putting secret or sensitive reports of the RAW or IB in the public domain is a matter of grace concern which I will react at an appropriate time. I can say this much, if the concerned office; who is working for the nation in disguise or in a secretive manner, will think twice that his/her report is going to be in the public domain. It will have an implication,” he said.
In the current case, the Collegium also noted that Pooniwalla professes Parsi Zoroastrianism and belongs to a minority community. Given all said above, it decided to endorse Pooniwalla’s nomination notwithstanding the IB’s protest.
