The Supreme Court Collegium has shown that the published opinions of a former senior who is critical about the government will not affect the prospects of a lawyer to become a High Court judge.
The collegium has recommended the name of Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla, an advocate, for Bombay High Court judgeship.
Though the Intelligence Bureau found nothing adverse about his image or integrity, it flagged an article written by Mr. Pooniwalla’s former senior at the Bar in 2020 “expressing concerns over the alleged lack of freedom of speech/expression in the country in the last five-six years”.
“The views which have been expressed by a former senior of Shri Pooniwalla have no bearing on his own competence, ability or credentials for appointment as a Judge of the High Court of Bombay,” the Collegium said, finding the advocate suitable for appointment as High Court judge.
Moreover, the Collegium reasoned that Mr. Pooniwalla and his former senior did not share an employee-employer relationship as both practised on the Original side of the High Court which allowed juniors associated a chamber to have their own independent legal practice.
Mr. Pooniwalla and two other advocates, Shailesh Pramod Brahme and Jitendra Shantilal Jain have been recommended for appointment as Bombay High Court judges.
Separately, in a resolution proposing Justice Robin Phukan as a permanent judge of the Gauhati High Court, the Collegium lists 11 points which provide an insight into what it looks for while evaluating the judgments of candidates in its zone of recommendation.
The Collegium lists 11 factors which make a good judgment. These include judgments which are well articulated and structured with proper recording of facts. Clear identification of issues and reasoned answers to them. Apt advertence to the law. Due consideration and application of mind to the submissions made y lawyers in court. Adequate reference to the material and relevant pleadings. Appreciation of ‘circumstantial evidence’ and appropriate compliance with ‘sentencing’.
The Collegium said Justice Phukan’s judgment had clarity with precision and lucidity.
“The art of writing the judgment is good; the Operative part of the order is clear; and the binding precedents and settled law has been duly followed,” the Collegium noted.
