Justice Amit Sharma today took oath as a judge of the Delhi High Court. Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court Satish Chandra Sharma administered the oath.
Earlier, he was appointed as an additional Judge of the Delhi High Court. He took oath as an additional judge of the High Court in June 2022.
Last Week, the Ministry of Law & Justice notified Justice Sharma’s appointment as a permanent judge.
Recently, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended names of various Additional Judges for appointing them as Permanent Judges in different high courts including one in Delhi HC.
The Supreme Court Collegium in its resolution has recommended the appointment of Justice Amit Sharma, Additional Judge, as a Permanent Judge of the High Court of Delhi.
In the file related to the proposal for appointment of Justice Amit Sharma, Additional Judge, as a Permanent Judge of the High Court of Delhi, the collegium said that it is of the considered view that Justice Amit Sharma, Additional Judge, is suitable for being appointed as a Permanent Judge of the High Court of Delhi and recommended him to be appointed as a Permanent Judge of the High Court of Delhi against an existing vacancy.
The Collegium of the high court on January 9, 2023, of Delhi unanimously recommended the name of Justice Amit Sharma, Additional Judge, for his appointment as a Permanent Judge of the High Court.
In order for ascertaining the fitness & suitability of Justice Amit Sharma, and for being appointed as a Permanent Judge, consultation was held with view to ascertain his suitability for elevation in terms of the Memorandum of Procedure, with Judges of the Supreme Court conversant with the affairs of the High Court of Delhi.
The Committee constituted in terms of the Resolution dated 26 October 2017 of the Supreme Court Collegium to assess the Judgments of Shri Justice Amit Sharma, has submitted its report.
The resolution stated that “With a view to assessing the merit and suitability of Justice Amit Sharma for his appointment as a Permanent Judge, the Collegium has scrutinized and evaluated the material placed on record including the observations made by the Department of Justice in the file as well as the report of the Judgment Evaluation Committee.”
