Jharkhand vs Centre judicial appointment: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Thursday notified Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani about a contempt petition filed by the state of Jharkhand against the central government over the delay in appointing the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court.

During a Supreme Court hearing, CJI Chandrachud said the petition had been brought to his attention the previous night.”There is also a contempt petition filed by the State of Jharkhand…just pointed out to me last night when I was leaving for home…that the State of Jharkhand. has filed a contempt against the Union of India…this was brought to my attention yesterday,” he was quoted as saying by Live Law.

Also Read:Bombay HC asks film body to decide on certification for Kangana Ranaut’s film ‘Emergency’ by Sept 25

Attorney General Venkataramani responded, saying he was unaware of the petition. This exchange took place when the AG requested the adjournment of a petition related to judges’ appointments, which is listed for Friday.

The attorney general indicated that the central government’s decision on the pending Collegium resolutions, including the appointment of High Court Chief Justices, would likely be resolved soon. “I request this matter may be pushed by a week or so, I will be in a position to comeback with something. Let it not be taken up tomorrow,” Venkataramani told the court.

Also Read:Rs 2,100 for women, 2 lakh govt jobs: BJP releases manifesto for Haryana Assembly election

CJI Chandrachud, however, declined the adjournment request, stating that the list for tomorrow is already published. Let the matter remain on board. He suggested the AG make his mention when the petitioner is present.

The Supreme Court Collegium, on July 11, recommended the appointment of Chief Justices for eight High Courts, but the resolutions remain pending with the Union government.

Last week, during a hearing on the petition urging timely appointments of judges, the AG mentioned that he wished to share “sensitive information” regarding the Collegium recommendations. As a result, the matter was adjourned until September 20.

On September 17, the Collegium modified three of its July 11 recommendations.