NEW DELHI: Rejecting the Centre’s proposal to recall the Supreme Court’s recommendation for appointment of four judges, including one allegedly for a nexus with land mafia and underworld, the SC collegium has restated its choice of four lawyers for appointment as Karnataka High Court judges.The collegium has felt that the allegations against the lawyers concerned were unverified and untenable and stuck to its recommendation.The reiteration comes in the wake of the recent observation of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi that “interference in the system of administration of justice does not augur well for the institution”.The CJI’s admonition had come during a hearing on appointment of Justice A A Kureshi as chief justice of a high court which the Centre has not cleared. The CJI had last month said that judicial appointments and transfers go to the root of the administration of justice. The Justice Kureshi case is still pending.Though the co-operation and understanding between the Centre and judiciary has improved in recent years resulting in faster appointment of judges in SC and HCs — the Centre also readily agreed to the CJI’s proposal to increase the number of judges — the divergence between the institutions is still playing out in a few cases.Apart from Justice Kureshi, who is the senior-most judge of the Gujarat HC, there was a prolonged showdown in case of Justice K M Joseph which delayed his elevation from Uttarakhand HC to SC.With regard to the Karnataka HC, the SC collegium had on March 25 recommended the names of eight lawyers but the Centre returned four — Savanur Vishwajith Shetty, Maralur Indrakumar Arun, Mohammed Ghouse Shukure Kamal and Engalaguppe Seetharamaiah Indiresh— citing various reasons.Objecting to the elevation of Shetty, the government said, “There is a complaint against him that he is having nexus with underworld and land mafia which indulged in extortion.” It said that there is also a complaint against Arun that he does not have a clean and transparent professional career.Rejecting the Centre’s stand, SC collegium of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S A Bobde and N V Ramana pointed out it was not dated complaint and the allegations against Shetty and Arun were unverified.“The allegations in the complaint have not been verified at any level at any point of time. Besides, Intelligence Bureau in its report has, inter alia, recorded that he enjoys good personal and professional image and nothing adverse came to notice against his integrity. Besides, all the consultee-judges have found him suitable for elevation. In view of above, the collegium is inclined to take the view that the allegations in the complaint dated ‘nil’ on the basis of which his name has been sent back for reconsideration are not tenable,” the collegium said for advocates Shetty and Arun.It also rejected the Centre’s objection that advocate Kamal has not practised in HC long enough to be eligible for elevation and said his average professional income is Rs 16.89 lakh and there is no adverse report against him.The court also held that the government’s objection against advocate Indiresh that he is a party in disputes in HC was untenable in view of his declaration that the plaintiff in a suit had filed an application to make him a party.