Supreme Court approves resolution of Supreme Court

Potential for political influence: The recommendation process for Supreme Court judges is often criticized for its susceptibility to political influence. Without proper checks and balances, there is a risk that the recommended judges may have been influenced by political considerations.

Lack of specialization: While Justice Bhuyan is recognized for his specialization in taxation law, the Supreme Court requires a diverse set of expertise to effectively handle a wide range of cases. The recommendation does not seem to consider this need for specialization in different areas of law.

Insufficient information on Justice Bhatti's track record: The collegium's resolution does not provide specific details about the cases handled by Justice Bhatti or his contributions to the field of law. This lack of information makes it difficult to assess his suitability for elevation.

Lack of diversity: The elevation of two judges from just two high courts overlooks the need for representation from other high courts, which may lead to a lack of diversity in the apex court.

Ignoring seniority: While Justice Bhatti may be the senior-most judge in his parent high court, seniority should not be the sole criterion for elevation to the Supreme Court. Other factors such as expertise and track record should also be considered.

Inadequate consideration of other candidates: The collegium's recommendation does not provide any explanation for why the recommended judges were chosen over other eligible candidates. This lack of transparency raises doubts about the selection process.

Overlooking existing vacancies: Instead of focusing on filling the existing vacancies, the collegium has chosen to recommend additional appointments to the Supreme Court. This may not be the most efficient use of resources and may potentially delay the appointment of justices for vacant positions.

Limited geographical representation: The recommended judges are from Telangana and Kerala, which may result in limited geographical representation and potentially exclude qualified candidates from other regions.

Failure to address the court's workload: The recommendation of two judges does not adequately address the workload and backlog of cases in the Supreme Court. Considering the current strength of judges, more appointments may be necessary to ensure timely justice delivery.

Lack of public consultation: The collegium's decision to recommend judges to the Supreme Court is made without any public consultation or input. This lack of public involvement reduces transparency and accountability in the appointment process.

I quite agree with the author

I'm not good enough at the detailed aspects of the matter