The Supreme Court collegium headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has recommended elevation of three advocates as judges of the Bombay High Court including advocate Firdosh Pooniwalla, brushing aside objection by the Intelligence Bureau (IB) over an article penned by his former senior three years ago.
The collegium’s resolution released on Tuesday stated it has recommended names of advocates Firdosh Pooniwalla, Shailesh Brahme and Jitendra Jain to be elevated as HC judges. It states that the IB has taken objection to elevation of Pooniwalla and Jain as judges, however, considering the overall opinion, they are “suitable for appointment as a Judge of the High Court of Bombay”.
On Pooniwalla, the 4-page resolution read: “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.”
However, the collegium, comprising CJI and justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph opined: “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.”
It 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,” it added.
Other than expressing reservation over Pooniwalla’s former senior, the IB has not given any other adverse comments. “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,” said the resolution.
In Jain’s case, the IB flagged issue pertaining to his work in the chamber of a senior on the taxation side about 20 years ago. “Enquiries have indicated that while it is correct that the candidate had ceased working in the chamber of that senior, he subsequently joined the chamber of a noted senior counsel at the Bar,” said the resolution. “The fact of the candidate having left the chamber of a senior earlier has no bearing on his ability, competence or integrity,” said the collegium while emphasising that he is suitable for appointment as HC judge.
It further said that the Bombay HC has a large volume of tax-related cases and a candidate with such background would be an asset to the work of the High Court.
The collegium recommended Brahme’s name saying that he is a “competent lawyer” with experience of about thirty years of practice in civil, criminal, constitutional and service law cases and “nothing adverse has been placed by the Department of Justice in the file”.
