THE All India Lawyers Union (AILU) objected to observations made by Supreme Court Bar Association president, Vikas Singh that lawyers practicing in the supreme court are more eligible to be judges.

The SCBA president had said in a statement that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) has agreed to the request made by the SCBA to consider the elevation of Supreme Court lawyers as judges of High Courts. The SCBA statement said that: “it has been observed that lawyers practicing in the Supreme Court while being professionally more meritorious than their colleagues at the High Courts, lose the opportunity for being considered as such."

AILU said this observation is "unwarranted, uncalled for and derogatory to lawyers practicing in the High Courts; and in bad taste."

"This may cause unhealthy divide and schism in the bar and impact its strength and efficacy to develop and protect the independence of the judiciary".

Judges of the High Courts are selected and appointed from the advocates practicing in the High Court concerned as they are the most eligible and suitable candidates for that office, AILU said.

The statement said there is no scope for comparison of the merits of advocates practicing in the High Courts and their colleagues practicing in the Supreme Court, in the context of Article 217 of the Constitution of India.

It is also reported as per the aforesaid press note that SCBA has already constituted a 'search committee' for identifying and selecting suitable candidates from the Supreme Court Bar for elevation as judges of the High Courts.

"So far, no opportunity is conceded to the bar associations of the High Courts to constitute any 'search committee' to identify eligible suitable candidates from the bar and to propose names to the chief justices of the High Courts for elevation as judges of the High Courts. In such a context, the above proposal of 'search committee' and to institutionalise such appointments may lead to unhealthy and disastrous consequences," AILU said.

The statement warned it could cause far-reaching negative consequences impacting independence of the judiciary and its transparency and would lead to substitution of the opinion of the High Court collegium by that of the Supreme Court collegium, in violation of Article 217 of the constitution. It militates against the federal principles, the autonomy of the High Courts, and the constitutional norms, in this regard, the statement said.

The union also said the SCBA president should withdraw his statement.