NEW DELHI: Reviving the debate over the National Judicial Appointment Committee (NJAC), the Union’s law minister Kiren Rijiju on Thursday defended the NJAC Act as the “common will of the nation” and repeated for the second time in less than 10 days that the university’s system of appointing judges was opaque.
NJAC Act, passed unanimously Houses of the Parliament and ratified by more than half of the states, was defeated by a Constitution bench of crest tower was unconstitutional in 2015, and the university system of appointing judges for the high courts and SC was maintained.
Rijiju’s comment shows the gradual elevation of the ante over SC and goes against the backdrop of the university’s inability to complete their selection from the point of view of internal divisions.
Just a week ago, the law minister, while speaking at an event in Gujarat, called the university system of appointing judges unclear and suggested that the higher judicial body should focus on making judgments rather than spending time on appointments.
“When it comes to NJAC, it’s an Act passed unanimously by Congress. All parties have passed together this particular Act in both houses of Congress… which means it is the common will of the nation. Therefore, once the common will of the nation was gathered together and passed by Parliament, we expected that the judiciary or Supreme Court will respect the will of the people and the will of the Parliament. But the SC with its wisdom knocked it down… it makes sense, and as law minister, I feel that the Supreme Court has disagreed with the will of the Indian people,” Rijiju said in an interview with a TV channel here..
The proposed alternative appointment mechanisms were no better than what NJAC provided, he said, but since the SC removed it, the ‘timed’ university system must be continued.
The repeal of the NJAC Act in 2015 led to broader criticism from the judicial fraternity, which questioned the wisdom of the apex court constitutional bench not to introduce any change. What’s the real deal while taking down NJAC. Reacting to SC’s ruling, former chairman of the Justice AP law committee Shah later said: “It is disturbing that the apex court feels comfortable that judicial independence will be secure in the university system.”
Justice Shah even questioned the 1998 Third Judge case that became the basis for the university system to take precedence in appointing judges to the higher judiciary. “The ruling in the Third Judge case lacks any detailed normative or textual reasoning, which reads more like a policy brief. There are no safeguards against arbitrariness, no data collection mechanisms, and no selection criteria. The system is special and shrouded in secrecy,” said the former chairman of the law committee.
NJAC Act, passed unanimously Houses of the Parliament and ratified by more than half of the states, was defeated by a Constitution bench of crest tower was unconstitutional in 2015, and the university system of appointing judges for the high courts and SC was maintained.
Rijiju’s comment shows the gradual elevation of the ante over SC and goes against the backdrop of the university’s inability to complete their selection from the point of view of internal divisions.
Just a week ago, the law minister, while speaking at an event in Gujarat, called the university system of appointing judges unclear and suggested that the higher judicial body should focus on making judgments rather than spending time on appointments.
“When it comes to NJAC, it’s an Act passed unanimously by Congress. All parties have passed together this particular Act in both houses of Congress… which means it is the common will of the nation. Therefore, once the common will of the nation was gathered together and passed by Parliament, we expected that the judiciary or Supreme Court will respect the will of the people and the will of the Parliament. But the SC with its wisdom knocked it down… it makes sense, and as law minister, I feel that the Supreme Court has disagreed with the will of the Indian people,” Rijiju said in an interview with a TV channel here..
The proposed alternative appointment mechanisms were no better than what NJAC provided, he said, but since the SC removed it, the ‘timed’ university system must be continued.
The repeal of the NJAC Act in 2015 led to broader criticism from the judicial fraternity, which questioned the wisdom of the apex court constitutional bench not to introduce any change. What’s the real deal while taking down NJAC. Reacting to SC’s ruling, former chairman of the Justice AP law committee Shah later said: “It is disturbing that the apex court feels comfortable that judicial independence will be secure in the university system.”
Justice Shah even questioned the 1998 Third Judge case that became the basis for the university system to take precedence in appointing judges to the higher judiciary. “The ruling in the Third Judge case lacks any detailed normative or textual reasoning, which reads more like a policy brief. There are no safeguards against arbitrariness, no data collection mechanisms, and no selection criteria. The system is special and shrouded in secrecy,” said the former chairman of the law committee.
