NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday said the Centre is frustrating the appointment process of judges in higher judiciary by not clearing names recommended by its collegium in violation of law and asked it to resolve the issue and not force it to “take decision on the judicial side”.
In what could intensify the stand-off between the government and SC over judicial appointments, the apex court also took exception to remarks made by law minister Kiren Rijiju who, while criticising the collegium system, had said that the court should not take upon itself the task to appoint judges. As the statement was brought to the court’s notice by SCBA president Vikas Singh, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S Oka said, “When someone high enough says that let them do themselves. We will do it ourselves, no difficulty. It came from someone high enough. All we can say it should not.”
Speaking at the recent Times Now summit, Rijiju called the collegium system “alien” to the Constitution while seeking transparency and accountability in appointments. “I don’t want to criticise the collegium, I just want to point out that there are loopholes and there is no accountability. It lacks transparency … If the government is sitting on files, then don’t send the files,” the minister had said.
Expressing anguish over the Centre keeping the names recommended by the collegium pending for long and selectively clearing them, the bench said it was being done in the violation of law and guidelines formed by the apex court by which a timeframe was put in place for various authorities to take a decision.
Noting that there are around 11 recommendations which were reiterated by the collegium, but pending before the government, the bench said in case of reiteration made by the collegium, the government was left with no option but to clear the names.

“Once reiterated then it is the end of the process as per the law. You cannot hold back. It is frustrating. This is not acceptable at all. Names are pending for more than one-and-a-half years. How can you say that you cannot clear the names? What we are conveying to you is that it is crossing some rubicon by keeping the names pending like this,” the bench told attorney general R Venkataramani and solicitor general Tushar Mehta.
The bench said the selectively cleared names from various lists of recommendation disturbed the seniority of the judges which is taken into consideration by the collegium. The court said the Centre’s approach was discouraging good lawyers from accepting judgeship. The court said that one of the lawyers even withdrew his consent because of delay and another passed away recently and his name was not cleared by the government.
The bench asked the attorney general and solicitor general to advise the government to observe the rule of law and adhere to the timeline in processing the files for judges’ appointment. Observing that a “double barrel” of the AG and SG would convince the government on the concerns raised, the bench hoped that some progress is made by the next date of hearing.
The bench said it was using “soft words” to express its anguish but no court can countenance violation of its own order.
Recommendations of 68 names are pending before the government, including 11 names in which the collegium had reiterated its recommendation. The court was hearing a contempt petition filed by The Advocates’ Association, Bengaluru, through advocate Pai Amit, alleging that the some of the recommendations were made by the collegium way back in 2019 and later their names were sent again after the Centre sought reconsideration but still no final decision had been taken yet.
On November 11, the top court issued notice to secretary (justice) and additional secretary (administration and appointment) on the contempt petition and said, “We are really unable to understand or appreciate such delays.”

NEW DELHI: “Detentions as China seeks to end widespread Covid protests,” screamed the BBC headline.
CNN carried the news as its lead story with the title “Rare protests spread across China.”
“China tightens security after rare protests against Covid curbs,” was the headline on Reuters frontpage.
The news about protests triggered by Covid curbs in the Chinese mainland featured prominently on almost every major international news platform on Monday evening (Indian time).
Except- and rather unsurprisingly- on the ones based in the place where it’s all happening.

Chinese news outlets were completely silent on anti-lockdown protests in Urumqi, Shanghai, Beijing and elsewhere, where people have come out in large numbers, demanding an end to the Covid lockdown.
In a rare show of dissent, protesters in large numbers confronted police on the streets and even raised slogans against President Xi Jinping and the Communist Party.
The CPC-backed Global Times at 7:30pm (IST) had Taiwan local elections and China’s space mission among its top stories, apart from some others belittling the West on a multitude of issues.
The only Covid-related story on the frontpage spoke of measures put in place in China, and had an expert’s opinion on what might be the best steps to take here on.
See for yourself what result the site returned for the search words “beijing protest” :

The China Daily, another CCP mouthpiece, was no different.
It did have a couple of Covid stories on top though, headlined “Expert: Home quarantine not workable yet,” and “Pandemic not completely over, Fauci says.”
But protests and anti-Xi chants? None!

That is not unexpected though, given China’s dismal track record vis-a-vis freedom of press. News and information, specially if it portrays the CCP and the government in a bad light, are ruthlessly censored. Journalists seen as behind such news are subjected to punitive actions- even foreign media persons are not spared.
The BBC said one of its journalist was beaten and briefly arrested in Shanghai while covering the current wave of protests.
China’s global image is taking another beating, as the protests have now spread to at least a dozen cities around the world in a show of solidarity with rare displays of defiance in China over the weekend.
Expatriate dissidents and students staged small-scale vigils and protests in cities in Europe, Asia and North America, including London, Paris, Tokyo and Sydney, according to a Reuters tally.
Chinese internet users and government censors are engaged in a cat-and-mouse game to control the narrative around the country’s anti- “zero COVID” protests, the ANI reported quoting another source.
Videos and photographs of the protests quickly circulated on Chinese social media platforms such as WeChat and Weibo, where they received tens of thousands of views before being deleted by government censors, it said.
The acts of defiance shared online included scenes of people tearing down barricades, calling for the resignation of President Xi Jinping, and holding up blank white pieces of paper as a symbol of protest.
By Monday, Chinese social media appeared to have scrubbed searches for protest hotspots like “Xinjiang” and “Beijing.”
The battle is on in cyberspace and on the ground.
Large crowds gathered Sunday in Beijing and Shanghai, where police clashed with protesters as they tried to stop groups from converging at Wulumuqi street.
Protesters have also used the rallies to call for greater freedoms. Some have even demanded the resignation of President Xi, recently re-appointed to a historic third term as China’s leader.
A planned protest in the capital Beijing later on Monday came to nothing as several dozen police officers and vans choked a crossroad near the assembly point in western Haidian district.
China is the last country in the world sticking to a “zero-COVID” policy aimed at stamping out flare-ups of the virus at almost any cost. The strategy, which relies on lockdowns, border controls and mass testing, has kept cases and deaths low compared with elsewhere but inflicted serious economic and social costs.
(With agency inputs)

UDUPI: An assistant professor of a Karnataka college has been debarred from taking classes, pending inquiry, after a video showing a student arguing with the professor in a classroom, for allegedly calling him by the name of a terrorist went viral.
In a tweet on Monday, the college authorities stated that “the concerned staff has been debarred from classes till the inquiry is over”.

In the viral video, an engineering student is seen questioning his professor. The professor is also heard apologizing to the student.
In a tweet, the institute stated that the institute has already initiated an inquiry into the incident.
“We would like everyone to know that the institute does not condone this kind of behaviour and this isolated incident will be dealt with in accordance with the laid down policy. The Institute prides itself on one of the biggest diversity on campus and is committed to uphold our constitutional values of treating everyone alike, irrespective of their caste, religion, region, gender etc.,” the institute stated in its tweet.
In the video, the professor is seen trying to pacify the student, but the latter counters by saying, “being a Muslim in this country and facing all these every day is not funny. Will you talk to your son like that? Will you call him by the name of a terrorist? How can you call me like that in front of so many people? You can’t call me that”.
A message purportedly shared by the student after the incident reads: “Hello everyone, All of you must have seen a video going viral where a student is telling his teacher that racist comments are not acceptable. The reason behind this was him calling me by an unacceptable name, “Kasaab“, one of the biggest terrorists this country has ever seen. It was a joke, which can not be considered a valid enough reason to question the identity of a human being. However, I had a conversation with the lecturer and realized that he genuinely meant that apology, and we as a student community must let it go as a genuine mistake. I understand what was happening in his head behind this and would like to believe he didn’t mean it. It came across wrong from a teacher, a person we admire, but it can be ignored this time. Thank you for standing with me through this. It means a lot. Regards”.