25/07, 20:38] sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/FnQh8SOvHHo[25/07, 20:42] sekarreporter1: To my starred Parliamentary question on the establishment of Regional benches of the Supreme Court, following social diversity / social justice in the appointment of Supreme Court judges, and the pay rise for Judges, the answer of Honble @arjunrammeghwal is very vague and evasive.To get clear answers when I raised permitted two supplementary questions on (1) Amending Art 130 to establish Regional benches of the Supreme Court

[25/07, 20:38]

25/07, 20:38] sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/FnQh8SOvHHo
[25/07, 20:42] sekarreporter1: To my starred Parliamentary question on the establishment of Regional benches of the Supreme Court, following social diversity / social justice in the appointment of Supreme Court judges, and the pay rise for Judges, the answer of Honble @arjunrammeghwal is very vague and evasive.
To get clear answers when I raised permitted two supplementary questions on (1) Amending Art 130 to establish Regional benches of the Supreme Court

: https://youtu.be/FnQh8SOvHHo
[25/07, 20:42] sekarreporter1: To my starred Parliamentary question on the establishment of Regional benches of the Supreme Court, following social diversity / social justice in the appointment of Supreme Court judges, and the pay rise for Judges, the answer of Honble @arjunrammeghwal is very vague and evasive.
To get clear answers when I raised permitted two supplementary questions on (1) Amending Art 130 to establish Regional benches of the Supreme Court, (2) implementation of Social diversity/Social Justice in the appointment of Judges of the High Court and Supreme Court, (3) sitting over recommendations of Supreme Court Collegium as the recommended candidates for HC belongs to OBC and Minority, again the Hon’ble Union Minister has given evasive answers ( in Hindi).

For better understanding, his speech is translated to English

Reply of Hon’ble Union Minister to Supplementary Question 1:
 
Hon’ble Chairman, in your presence, I want to convey to the Hon’ble Member that it is true that there is a provision under Article 130 to decide where the Supreme Court would be situated. If the President consents to it and the Chief Justice of India considers it to be rightful, then Article 130 can rightfully be invoked. However, regarding the Department Related Standing Committee of Law and Justice, yes, there is a report, one 133rd Report that we have in the Law of Justice.
Then, the member asked why they weren’t proceeding based on a decision. I want to convey to the Hon’ble member through your medium that there is also a 2007 decision, along with 2010, where the Supreme Court found no justification for setting up a bench of the Supreme Court outside Delhi. So, under Article 130, which is at the discretion of the Chief Justice, I have answered that since the matter is sub-judice, we cannot proceed further since the matter is not settled.
 
Answer to Supplementary Question 2:
 
Hon’ble Chairman, in your presence, I want to convey this to the Hon’ble Member that the appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts is made under Articles 124, 217 and 224 of the Constitution of India, which do not provide reservation for any caste or class of persons.
Despite that, in 2018, the present government under Modiji’s leadership had instructed the Supreme Court and High Court to provide recommendation on basis of the social background. In this regard, we are stating that after 2018, out of 661 judges appointed, 21 belong to SC, 12 belong to ST, and 78 belong to OBC. This categorisation has commenced only after 2018. In this regard, we are saying that after 2018, 661 High Court judges have been appointed, of which 21 belong to SC, 12 belong to ST, and 78 belong to OBC. This categorisation has commenced after 2018. Despite this, whenever the High Court sends a recommendation, we address them with a letter requesting them to send the names of minority/SC/ ST/Women as much as possible, on which we have been progressing swiftly.
@aifsoj