Never miss a story

Get subscribed to our newsletter


×



New Delhi: The central government on Monday told the Supreme Court that it was the will of the people to have transparent, accountable and criteria-based appointment of judges through the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) instead of the collegium system whose working was shrouded in mystery.

Contending parliament and the 20 state assemblies, which have backed the NJAC, represented the people, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the constitution bench of Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, Justice J. Chelameswar, Justice Madan B. Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel that it was the people who wanted the change in the method of judges’ appointment.

Describing the junked collegium system akin to “you scratch my back, I will scratch yours”, he sought to thrash the challenge to NJAC on the grounds that it compromised the independence of judiciary as judicial members of the commission were not in majority and did not have the “right to insistence” in the appointments.

Asserting that there was no primacy of judiciary in the constitution, Rohatgi told the court that the right to insist upon an appointment is not available to the judicial members of the NJAC comprising chief justice of India and two seniormost judges after him.

The court was told this in the course of the hearing of a batch of petitions including one by the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) along with the Bar Association of India, NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation and others challenging the constitutional validity of the constitution’s Ninety Nine Amendment Act, 2014 and NJAC Act, 2014.

Assailing the petitioners’ position that the NJAC is an assault on the independence of judiciary – described as the basic structure of the constitution, Rohatgi told the court that appointment of judges was not a part of such independence which only starts with after appointment in terms of their conditions of service and working.

However, on being questioned by the court, he conceded that even appointment of judges formed a part of independence of judiciary but a “very small” part.

Telling the court that it could not adjudicate on the “wisdom of the parliament” in choosing one model over another in appointment of judges, Rohatgi said that 1993 second judges verdict of judges appointing judges was “coloured by the expediency of the time then and the court should have changed it itself with things getting normal”, referring to the mid-1970s which saw the supercession and mass transfers of judges.

He said if the court had not corrected the position on its own then there were “no fetters on parliament to restore the original provision of article 124 of the constitution which gave government primacy in the judicial appointments”.

Defending NJAC, Rohatgi contended that under the new system, the government’s powers in the appointment of judges had been diluted, as it was one of the six members of the NJAC.

Scoffing at the suggestion that two eminent people on the NJAC will collude with the law minister to render judicial component ineffective, he said there was no reason why these two representing the diversity of society would not hold the CJI and two other judges in reverence.

Describing the resistance to NJAC as an “argument of psychosis” based on “surmises” and “possibility of abuse of the process”, he said a possibility can’t be a basis of challenge while any “actual abuse” can be addressed by the court.

Rohatgi, asserting that nine out of 10 names for the appointment of judges would get cleared without any dissent, argued: “If CVC (central vigilance commissioner) can be appointed by people at loggerheads (prime minister, home minister and leader of opposition) it is absurd to have a proposition that two eminent people on the NJAC will have a jaundiced or evil eye.” (IANS)


Popular

Photo by Flickr.

Swastika, one of the sacred symbols used by many religions like Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism.

The symbol of Swastika is known to signify peace, prosperity, and good fortune in the religious cultures of Eurasia. In fact, this symbol is considered very significant in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. But, at the same time, it has become one of the most misunderstood religious symbols and has been globally banned in many countries.

The reason why the symbol of Swastika is banned in many countries is because of its association with Adolf Hitler's extreme political ideology, Nazism, as Swastika as its official symbol.

Keep Reading Show less
Pixabay

Since emerging into the public eye with a historic gold medal at the junior world championships in 2016, he has maintained a high level of performance

India celebrated a historic day on August 7, as 23-year-old Neeraj Chopra became the first Indian to win an Olympic gold medal in athletics. In the men's javelin throw event, he achieved his greatest triumph, throwing the javelin 87.58 meters on his second try.

Neeraj Chopra was born on December 24, 1997, in Khandra village in Haryana's Panipat district. He grew up in a Haryanavi family of farmers. He is the brother of two sisters. He graduated from Dayanand Anglo-Vedic College in Chandigarh and is now enrolled in Lovely Professional University in Jalandhar, Punjab, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts degree. Chopra was bullied due to his obesity as a kid, which prompted his father to enroll him in a nearby gym. He then joined a gym in Panipat, where Jaiveer Choudhary, a javelin thrower, noticed his potential and coached him. When the 13-year-old Chopra finished training under Jaiveer for a year, he was enrolled at the Tau Devi Lal Sports Complex in Panchkula, where he began training under coach Naseem Ahmed.

Keep Reading Show less
wikimedia commons

Gothic dresses displayed in a store

The emergence of the Industrial Revolution in Victorian England brought with it many apprehensions and fears that translated into a new genre in literature: the gothic. Today, the idea of the gothic does not have to much with literature as much as it is associated with fashion.

The Victorians began to wear black more often during the Industrial Revolution to hide the stains of soot on their clothes. Many of the working class were employed in factories. They were newly introduced to technology, the idea of coal as fuel, and the working of machines to serve a certain purpose. This kind of work was hard and messy. Wearing light colours burdened the tired folk when the stubborn stains did not get washed away.

Keep reading... Show less