The Supreme Court on Tuesday told the Centre that the “pick and choose” method adopted by the government in clearing appointments of judges must stop as it was creating serious anomalies and affecting seniority of judges.

“This selective business… this pick and choose method must stop. This is not an off-hand remark, but something I have discussed with my colleagues in the collegium. I flag this issue because people lose out on their seniority…,” the bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul told attorney-general R. Venkataramani during a hearing.

Venkataramani is representing the Centre in the matter.

This is not the first time, the bench has expressed displeasure with the Centre for withholding some names and clearing others, thereby affecting the seniority of the judges recommended by the collegium headed by the Chief Justice of India.

The bench was dealing with separate applications moved by the Bengaluru Advocates Association, Supreme Court Bar Association and the NGO Common Cause challenging the Centre’s blocking of the collegium’s recommendations despite reiterations.

When the matter came up for hearing on Tuesday, the bench, which included Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, minced no words in expressing its concern over the Centre’s intransigence.

Justice Kaul, who is the second seniormost judge and member of the collegium, told Venkataramani that apart from five names reiterated, 14 names were still pending with the Centre.

Under the MoP (Memorandum of Procedure), which governs the appointment process, the Centre has no other option but to clear a name once the collegium reiterates it.

“Mr attorney-general, as of now there are five names which are pending though they have been reiterated for the second time. Apart from that, there are 14 names, which are pending,” the bench said.

It said the “troubling aspect” was that when names are cleared in instalments, the candidates lose their seniority. For instance, in the case of Punjab and Haryana High Court, the bench said it had cleared five names. However, the government chose to clear candidates 3,4 and 5 while withholding the names of 1 and 2, which were sent on the basis of their seniority.

“They lost out seniority. That is not acceptable. I will never be able to suggest to anyone to accept judgeship who has reasonable practice. Why should he put his neck on the block?” Justice Kaul asked the attorney-general.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for Common Cause, told the bench that “the court must crack the whip”. He said the court should also summon the Union law secretary and take action against him for contempt.

“It’s time for your Lordships to crack the whip because the government is getting the impression that it can get away with this type of behaviour. You have to summon the law secretary or the law minister,” Bhushan said.

He added: “Ultimately your Lordships will have to haul up those responsible for the gross contempt of the court.”

Senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the Bengaluru Advocates Association, urged the court to pass an order under Article 141 laying guidelines for clearing appointments strictly on the basis of recommendations made by the collegium.

Under Article 141, all authorities — both judicial and civil — have to comply with any order passed by the Supreme Court.