By Our Correspondent
BHUBANESWAR: Most probably yes, the original three are currently looking stronger than the expanded list. Why the Solicitor General’s strong push may not swing it.
Amicus Curiae has explicitly recommended that the Court ignore the August expanded list and go by the original May list (Sudhanshu Sarangi, Susanta Kumar Nath, R.P. Koche).
The Bench has shown clear scepticism toward the mid-process promotions and temporary ex-cadre posts that brought Sanjeeb Panda and Y.K. Jethwa into the zone. The “backdoor entry is not acceptable” remark from earlier, plus the detailed questioning on excess vacancies this week, point in that direction.
The Solicitor General had to seek time precisely when the advanced-promotion / vacancy arithmetic came up — a sign that the State is under pressure on that issue.
Even if the expanded list is rejected, Susanta Nath’s position is still contested. The Court is also examining whether withdrawing his integrity certificate (on the basis of a CBI letter that only said he may be questioned) was valid.
If the Court finds the withdrawal improper → the original three return in full. If the Court upholds the exclusion of Nath → it could become a two-name panel (Sarangi + Koche) or the Court may direct a fresh limited exercise.
The most likely outcome at this stage is that the Supreme Court will prefer the original senior-most officers over the expanded list that was created after the August promotions. The next hearing will clarify the exact composition.
It does not currently look like the Supreme Court is inclined to freely accept the expanded list. Earlier in the hearing, the same Bench (CJI Surya Kant + Justices JM Bagchi & V Mohana) used the phrase “any backdoor entry is not acceptable” when the promotions of Sanjeeb Panda and Y.K. Jethwa first came up.
Amicus Curiae Raju Ramachandran has specifically recommended that the Court disregard the August expanded list and stick to the original May list of senior officers.
In the latest hearings (22–24 September), the Court has been probing the timing and justification of the two temporary ex-cadre posts that enabled the “advanced” promotions. When that exact issue of excess vacancies / advanced promotion came up, the SG sought time and the matter was adjourned.
Petitioner’s counsel (P. Chidambaram) has argued that the sequence was designed to enlarge the zone of consideration to bring in junior officers — an argument the Bench has not brushed aside.
The Court is examining the legal chain by which names (including Panda’s) entered the list, not merely the final names. If it finds the temporary posts and mid-process promotions invalid or engineered, the expanded list is likely to be rejected or restricted.
The expanded list that put Sanjeeb Panda in is under serious judicial scrutiny. The Court’s tone so far leans toward caution and skepticism rather than ready acceptance. The next hearing (expected Tuesday) will be decisive.
Why the SG’s strong push may not swing it . The same Bench (CJI Surya Kant + Justices Bagchi & Mohana) has already used the phrase “any backdoor entry is not acceptable” earlier in this very case. That observation was made when the mid-process promotions first surfaced.
Amicus Curiae Raju Ramachandran has formally recommended that the Court discard the expanded August list and stick to the original May list of three senior officers. Courts usually give significant weight to an amicus report in such matters.
When the critical issue of excess vacancies and advanced promotions came up this week, the SG had to seek time. That is rarely a sign that the Bench is already convinced by the State’s position.
Supreme Court benches deciding Prakash Singh compliance issues tend to focus on the sequence of events and whether the process was engineered, rather than on how forcefully the SG argues.
Persistent and well-documented submissions by the SG can force the Court to examine the State’s documentary justification (MHA approvals for temporary posts, cadre rules, residual service calculations, etc.).
Create a clearer record if the matter later goes into review or larger issues of cadre management.But on the core question — whether the Court will accept an expanded list created after last-minute promotions — the Bench’s own earlier language and the amicus recommendation currently point more towards scepticism than acceptance.
The SG’s determined effort keeps the State’s case alive and ensures every legal angle is argued. It is unlikely, however, to reverse the cautious, sceptical tone the Bench has already displayed toward the expanded list. The next hearing will show whether the additional material the SG wants to place is enough to change that.
