Saghar Mehdi

‘Rijiju’s Consistent Critique of Judicial System Was Unwarranted’

Saghar Mehdi, an advocate at the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court, speaks about Kiren Rijiju’s stint as Union Law Minister which was riddled with unsavoury outbursts:

I believe the transfer of Mr Kiren Rijiju from the Union law ministry was a result of his continuous and uncalled for vocal criticism of the collegium system for the appointment of judges in the Indian judiciary system. Mr Rijiju was repeatedly making ‘suggestions’ for the inclusion of the Executive in the decision-making process for the appointment of judges, which caused the Union government many an embarrassing moment. A bitter, unsavoury exchange left the government with no other option but to shift him to another ministry.

As far as the social or professional behavioural ethics go, it is ideal for the constituents of any system or organisation to work within one’s domain and responsibility assigned. This is particularly so in a robust democracy, where the three constitutional pillars, namely Legislature, Executive, Judiciary should not interfere in the work domain of others for smooth functioning of the state.

In this sense, the continuous and unwarranted outburst of a person holding a high office was widening the differences between the executive and the judiciary. If at all the ‘recommendations’ of Mr Rijiju were to be implemented by any chance, the judiciary would lose its impartiality. For, its actions and decision will then be seen or perceived as influenced by the government of the day. For any judicial system to remain unprejudiced, it should not perform under any kind of influence or indulgence of the government otherwise it will merely be reduced to a puppet in it hands.

ALSO READ: ‘Political Postings For Retd Judges Send A Wrong Signal’

The Union minister had also been terming the Collegium system of appointing judges as opaque and not accountable from many platforms and had been advocating an alternative mechanism (with the interference of the government). If at all you imagine it to be so, it will become like a double-edged sword with all the observations and judgments going under the lens on all the platforms creating more problems for both the constituents (of the appointment authority – the government and the judiciary).

Rijiju’s comments on retired judges – he said a few retired judges were part of the anti-India gang – probably the last straw that tested the government patience. It was a sub-standard, childish remark, and a direct attack on the judiciary.

Even the lawyers community across the country felt that the allegations against retired judges, who spent a lifetime to uphold the rule of law, marked a new low in the public discourse. It is justifiable to be critical in a healthy manner in a democracy but to be outrageous and launch a blunt attack on a responsible person is character assassination. And coming from a person sitting in a highly accountable position, this was unacceptable.

It is the beauty of Indian Constitution that it provides a fair and just platform to everyone to live freely and express their emotions and feelings. But this freedom and these rights should be duly reciprocated and practiced with mutual respect to one another.

Read More: lokmarg.com

As told to Rajat Rai

Supreme Court

SC Criticises Centre On Judicial Appointment

Centre faced Supreme Court’s ire on Thursday as the top court again criticised the government over judicial appointment issues and remarked that Parliament has the right to enact new law but at the same time must adhere to existing legal positions.

A bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said that it expects the Attorney General to play the role of the seniormost law officer to advise the government on the existing legal position.
The court also said the government cannot conveniently cite the views of some judges on MoP to oppose Collegium recommendations.

The Supreme Court said that Parliament has the right to enact a law but it is also subject to the scrutiny of courts and “it is important that the law laid down by this court is followed else people would follow the law which they think is correct”.

The court observation came while hearing a plea against the Centre for keeping pending a name that the Collegium recommended in the list for appointment to various High Courts and the apex court.

The court also took note of the Centre’s recent decision to send back a second time reiterated names and said it is a breach of its earlier direction. The court said that it is not aware of the special circumstance for which this name was dropped.

The court also told the Attorney General to advise Union Ministers to exercise some control over their public criticism about the Collegium and said that the statements made recently are not being taken very well and the ministers ought to exercise some control.

The court remarked that it has told the Attorney General that the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) is final till government suggestions are looked into, MoP as finalised has to apply.

The court also cited the earlier Constitution Bench decision of the top court upholding the Collegium system and said that the government is bound to implement and enforce the law as laid down.

The court opined that there will be a breakdown if everyone starts choosing what to follow.

The Supreme Court said that there is an existing MoP and the government thinks some alterations are required but that does not take away from the existing legal process.

Observing that it looks just like a blame game, the court noted that years after the name for the judicial appointment was returned which Collegium again reiterated.

SC said, “How do we sort out these issues. This is some kind of an infinite battle. AG you will have to do a little better to sort out this”.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner also said that rule of the law has to be followed and take strong objection to the comments on Collegium.

In the last hearing, the Court had also expressed its disappointment with the statement given by the Law Minister to a news channel.

In 2014, the National Democratic Alliance government brought the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act in an attempt to change the system of appointment of judges.

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar recently passed a certain remark on the 99th Constitutional Amendment Bill paving way for the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) which was undone by the Supreme Court in 2015. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/