SC Collegium Picks Lawyer With Disability, Practitioner From Marginalised Caste

The top court's judicial appointment body also recommended a trial court lawyer for elevation to the Gujarat HC.

SC Collegium Picks Lawyer With Disabilities, Marginalised Caste Practitioner

(Photo: Altered by The Quint)

The Supreme Court Collegium, on Thursday, 2 March, has recommended a lawyer with disabilities, a trial court lawyer and a lawyer from a marginalised caste for elevation to the Gujarat and Gauhati High Courts.

The judicial appointment body comprising of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph, recommended:

• Moxa Kiran Thakker: A person with disability who has taken up both civil and criminal cases as a Gujarat High Court judge

  In their resolution the collegium said:

“She has been able to overcome her own physical disabilities and her appointment would bring greater inclusion to the composition of the High Court.”

• Devan Mahendrabhai Desai: A trial court lawyer practising predominantly at the city civil court in Ahmedabad to the Gujarat High Court

  The Collegium said that his several years of experience as a trial court lawyer "would be an asset particularly in dealing with civil and commercial work in the High Court of Gujarat."

• Kardak Ete: a "Scheduled tribe' Lawyer as a Gauhati High Court judge.

  The Collegium said:

"The candidate belongs to a Scheduled Tribe. Besides his own competence and standing at the Bar, the appointment of Shri Kardak Ete will bring greater diversity and inclusion to the High Court."

Besides these, the top court's collegium also nominated the following higher judicial services members for elevation:

1. Susan Valentine Pinto, 

2. Hasmukhbhai Dalsukhbhai Suthar, 

3. Jitendra Champaklal Doshi, 

4. Mangesh Rameshchandra Mengdey, 

5. Divyeshkumar Amrutlal Joshi 

According to the resolution, two senior judicial officers have been skipped because:

“We find that the high court collegium has duly recorded reasons for not recommending the names of those judicial officers. We are in agreement with the justification given."

(With inputs from LiveLaw)