The Court stated that the remarks made by government officials were inappropriate and requested that the Attorney General of India, R. Venkataramani, to “advise them” (such government functionaries).
On Thursday, the Supreme Court disapproved of remarks made by government officials regarding the Collegium method for choosing judges to the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
A bench consisting of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Vikram Nath, and Abhay S Oka stated that the remarks were misguided and requested that Attorney General for India R Venkataramani “advise them” (such government functionaries).
According to the structure outlined in the Constitution of India, while the parliament has the authority to create legislation, the courts have the authority to scrutinise such legislation.
“The structure of our constitution mandates that our court be the ultimate arbiter of law. Parliament has the authority to enact a law, but the court has the authority to examine it. It is crucial that the law established by this court be adhered to; otherwise, everyone will pursue their own interpretations of the law “court stated.
These remarks were made in the light of recent statements by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar, who stated that in no other democracy can constitutional courts strike down amendments to the Constitution passed by the legislature.
He specifically mentioned the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, claiming that it was passed unanimously in the Lok Sabha and without opposition in the Rajya Sabha, but was nonetheless ruled down by the superior court.
Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju described the collegium system as “foreign” to the Indian Constitution on November 28, 2022.
He stated that the Central government cannot be accused of ‘sitting on recommendations’ given by the Collegium, and that the judges’ organisation cannot expect the government to approve all of its recommendations.
Today, however, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka, and Vikram Nath heard objections to the remarks.
“People should not believe that they will obey a law they feel to be correct. This has far-reaching implications. It is inappropriate for government officials, etc., to comment on the Supreme Court collegium. Please inform the Attorney General of this” Judge Nath stated.
Justice Kaul stated, “Any law determined by this court is binding on all parties involved.”
The Court was hearing two petitions, one from 2018 filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) and another from 2017 filed by the Advocates Association of Bengaluru, both of which alleged that the Central government’s failure to process the names recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium for appointment as judges was in direct violation of the Second Judges case.
At the previous hearing, the bench commented that the government’s pick-and-choose approach to recommending candidates was harming the seniority of justices.
“In a monetary sense, it is difficult to attract successful lawyers to the field. The top first-generation attorneys, however, have declined to participate in the system, citing the cumbersome appointment procedure. This is the harsh truth”, the Court commented.
The apex court had also stated that the government should not withhold names without expressing its objections, and that decent persons must be appointed to the bench, barring any exceptions.
Previously, the supreme court had requested a response from the Union Law Secretary regarding the petition.
Relevantly, the bench had observed that holding the names in abeyance was “becoming a method to coerce these individuals to remove their names.”
In its order issued today, the Court emphasised the government’s delay in approving Collegium proposals and its impact on the seniority of justices.
“When recommendations made by SC collegium, the aspect of seniority has to be maintained. This is another aspect govt must look at. Attorney General (AG) assures us that he will look at it. We expect AG to play role of senior most law officer,” the Court said.
It then posted the case for further hearing next week.
Written By: Lakshman Singh, B.B.A LL.B (Hons.), Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University, Lucknow
0 Comments