Instead of striking down NJAC Act altogether, Supreme Court could have ruled in favour of one of the following alternatives:
(1) The two eminent persons could be chosen by the Chief Justice, thereby effectively giving Judiciary dominant position (with Chief Justice and two Judges already provide for as Members of the Committee in the Act itself) in decision-making on the appointments and transfers of Judges
(2) Independence of Judiciary is not compromised just because Law Minister representing the Executive is present in the Committee that takes decisions on appointments of Judges since there are as many as three members representing the Judiciary in the Committee as provided in the Act itself.
(3) Even in USA the Executive, namely the President, appoints a Judge of the Supreme Court who has to be cleared by the Upper House. A similar arrangement could have been approved in India. Transfers of Judges could be left to be decided upon by the Supreme Court.
(4) The Judicial Commission can take decisions with majority resting with the Judiciary can take decisions on the transfers of Judges
(5) The methodology and criteria could have been laid down for strict compliance in selection and appointment of Judges, thereby bringing in transparency in the process which has been complained as missing hitherto in the functioning of the Collegium.
Supreme Court of India seems to have been so over-anxious to safeguard the so-called 'Independence' of Judiciary that it did not like involvement of the Executive at all even in selection or transfer of a Judge. more
(1) The two eminent persons could be chosen by the Chief Justice, thereby effectively giving Judiciary dominant position (with Chief Justice and two Judges already provide for as Members of the Committee in the Act itself) in decision-making on the appointments and transfers of Judges
(2) Independence of Judiciary is not compromised just because Law Minister representing the Executive is present in the Committee that takes decisions on appointments of Judges since there are as many as three members representing the Judiciary in the Committee as provided in the Act itself.
(3) Even in USA the Executive, namely the President, appoints a Judge of the Supreme Court who has to be cleared by the Upper House. A similar arrangement could have been approved in India. Transfers of Judges could be left to be decided upon by the Supreme Court.
(4) The Judicial Commission can take decisions with majority resting with the Judiciary can take decisions on the transfers of Judges
(5) The methodology and criteria could have been laid down for strict compliance in selection and appointment of Judges, thereby bringing in transparency in the process which has been complained as missing hitherto in the functioning of the Collegium.
Supreme Court of India seems to have been so over-anxious to safeguard the so-called 'Independence' of Judiciary that it did not like involvement of the Executive at all even in selection or transfer of a Judge. more
Viewed by 338
View all 8 comments Below 8 comments
The NJAC with the veto condition indeed the proper & appropriate address to avoid those in any form found un-suitable. Even if the government/ executive is kept away , this condition helps a lot in selecting a candidate . This issue of easy address was in deed the one that is the need of the hour as in all other governing Bodies please . more
Oct 19
QUESTION ABOUT THE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME TO HEAR AND DECIDE ON THE SYSTEM OF APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES IN JUDICIARY INVITES OPINOIN FROM THE CONSTITUTIOAL EXPERTS , AS PER OUR CONSTITUTION THE PARLIAMENT HAS RIGHT TO MAKE AMENDMENTS IN THE CONTITUTION AND EVEN ADOPT NEW CONSTITUTION AS HAPPENED IN MANY COUNTRIES. WHETHER IT WOULD BE LAWFUL TO HEAR AND DECIDE ON NJAC WHEN IT IS RELATED DIRECTLY TO THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM, WHEN IN A BENCH IF SOME HONORABLE JUDGE HAS ANY CONNECTION WITH THE CASE WITHDRAWS HIMSELF FROM THE CASE. WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DUE RESPECT TO THE SUPREME COURT THE CONSTITUTINAL EXPERTS ARE REQUESTED TO KINDLY DEBATE ON THE ISSUE FOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMMON PEOPLE OF OUR NATION. REGARDS, more
Oct 18
I do not think the collegium system has exactly covered itself in glory. Remember that even that system arose through parliamentary system. Anyone with unlimited powers can msuse it as was done during Emergency when it was ratified by Judiciary. There is nothing wrong in having mambers of public on the NJAC. It is not only lawyers or those of legal fraternity that know who is efficient or not. Most of the country have no system of judiciary appointing its own. more
Oct 17
The Corruption etc., ; illegal ; misappropriation ; misrepresentation ; misuse of power etc., etc., are only because of the set aside of the Law & Order activities & responsibilities that vested only with the Executive and not the Judiciary that has had been dependent on the Executive for increasing the number of Courts and even the number of sufficient Judges at par with the increasing Crimes at least . IN DEED AND IN FACT LAW & JUSTICE UNDER JUDICIARY HAD BEEN AND IS IN SEARCH OF LAW & ORDER THAT IS VESTED WITH THE EXECUTIVE THAT WAS AND IS LINKED WITH POLITICIANS . Inevitable circumstances created and prevailing are to be understood to assess or conclude any please . more
Oct 17
