The veto power introduced in the Judicial Appointments Bill cleared by the Lok Sabha drew comments but was allowed to pass
Two of the three pillars of democracy came together this week to show the third its place. The first government to enjoy a single-party majority in the Lok Sabha after 30 long years, along with other MPs, decided to bury the 15-year-old system of judges appointing themselves. The unanimity on display in the Lok Sabha in passing the historic Judicial Appointments Bill signalled at a smooth passage through the Rajya Sabha as well. Barring the odd discordant note struck by an MP or two, all political parties, including the Congress, the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party, seemed to agree that it was time to bid the ‘collegium’ system goodbye. The system under which the Chief Justice of India and five seniormost judges of the Supreme Court appointed and transferred judges to the 24 high courts in the country and also judges to the apex court will be replaced by a six-member Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) comprising three judges, the Union law minister and two eminent citizens.
There was no empirical evidence to show that the collegium system had failed, cautioned former Delhi University vice-chancellor Upendra Baxi at a consultation in late July. Barely 48 hours before the Lok Sabha passed the bill, Chief Justice R.M. Lodha lamented in open court attempts to condemn and vilify the collegium system. One of the MPs, Asaduddin Owaisi, warned that Parliament was handing over a blank cheque to the executive. But such voices were drowned by the tide of criticism of the “opaque and arbitrary” system. In which other democracy do judges appoint themselves was the belligerent question asked by one MP after another even as a few tried to remind them that in India, where the government happens to be the major litigant, it would be an equally bad, if not worse, system to allow the litigant to appoint the judges.
Parliamentarians have been upset with the higher judiciary giving politicians a bad name in recent years. Conceding that there are black sheep in politics, they wondered why it had become a fashion for high courts and the Supreme Court to make generalisations. The judiciary was meant to interpret the law, not make laws, they asserted, explaining partly their urge to clip its wings. While the judiciary was busy pointing fingers at the government, quashing appointments and questioning laws and policies, what has been its own record, they asked.
Trinamool’s Kalyan Banerjee, later praised and thanked profusely by Union law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, was the most vehement. The chief justice of the Gujarat high court, Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya, was not elevated to the Supreme Court, he alleged, merely because he had missed attending a function at an institution visited by the then Chief Justice of India. Bhattacharya’s plea that a case involving the institution was pending before his court cut no ice, he added. “A judge who never met a lawyer after he became a judge, who never attended a social function after he became a judge, was superseded because of the whims of the collegiums,” he asserted. Former law minister Veerappa Moily seemed to agree. “Even a briefless lawyer ends up as a CJI,” he quipped.
Why have a six-member Judicial Appointments Commission? Shouldn’t it have been an odd number? How will the two ‘eminent citizens’ be selected? Shouldn’t there be similar commissions at the state level? Why not launch an All-India Judicial Service to ensure direct recruitment of district judges through competition? The law minister had no clear answer, except to urge members to trust the sagacity of the prime minister, the CJI and the leader of the largest party in the Lok Sabha, who together will select the two eminent citizens.
Will the JAC interfere with the integrity and independence of the judiciary and can it remain free from political influence? Time will tell.
The collegium system for appointing judges of high courts and the Supreme Court vested exclusive power in the hands of SC judges (Requiem for Collegium, Aug 25). There are enough corrupt judges and they elevate other corrupt judges. There are also some instances when judges have belittled Union law ministers. If ministers can rule the country, they have to be eligible to appoint judges also. A Judicial Appointments Commission is better suited for a democracy than the collegium system.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT