Collegium picks Parsi lawyer for HC, rejects IB’s objection

The collegium maintained that the lawyer is suitable in all respects for appointment as a judge of the Bombay high court

The Supreme Court collegium on Tuesday recommended a Parsi lawyer to be appointed as a judge in the Bombay high court, snubbing an objection by the Intelligence Bureau (IB) that he was a junior to an advocate who wrote an article alleging lack of free speech in the country.

In January, the collegium had reiterated its recommendation to appoint two lawyers as judges in the high courts of Bombay and Madras respectively, emphasising on the importance of free speech. (Agencies)

Brushing aside IB’s objections against the proposed elevation of advocate Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla over an article penned by his former senior three years ago, the collegium maintained that the lawyer is suitable in all respects for appointment as a judge of the Bombay high court.

“The Intelligence Bureau has, however, flagged that Shri Pooniwalla had earlier worked under an advocate. It is reported that the said advocate has written an article in a publication in 2020 expressing concerns over the alleged lack of freedom of speech/expression in the country in the last 5-6 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,” stated the collegium’s resolution released on Tuesday.

The collegium, comprising Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph, noted that Pooniwalla and his former senior did not have an employer- employee relationship because both of them practised on the original side of the litigation in the high court where juniors are free to handle their own cases.

“Junior counsel associated with the chamber of a senior on the Original side are 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,” added the resolution. Under Original jurisdiction, a high court has the authority to hear the dispute in the first instance, and not only by way of appeal.

Apart from reservations expressed over his former senior, the collegium noted, no other adverse comments reflecting on the suitability of Pooniwalla for elevation have been made by the IB. “The candidate has an extensive practice at the Bar and is specialized in commercial law. The candidate professes Parsi Zoroastrianism and belongs to a minority community,” it further stated.

In addition to Pooniwalla, the collegium also recommended advocates Shailesh Pramod Brahme and Jitendra Shantilal Jain for appointment as judges in the Bombay high court. About Brahme, the collegium noted 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.

Jain, with his specialization in tax litigation, will be “an asset to the work of the High Court”, the collegium said while recommending him.

In January, the collegium had reiterated its recommendation to appoint two lawyers as judges in the high courts of Bombay and Madras respectively, emphasising on the importance of free speech.

It said that “expression of views by a candidate does not disentitle him to hold a constitutional office” while imploring the Centre to appoint Somasekhar Sundaresan, who has been picked for elevation to the Bombay high court, and R John Sathyan, who has been selected for the Madras high court. But the two lawyers are yet to be appointed by the government.