Supreme Court Disapproves Of Law Minister’s Remarks On Judges’ Appointment

Supreme Court rejects Justice Minister's comment on judge appointment

The attorney general, on behalf of the Center, said that “sometimes media reports are false”.

New Delhi:
The Supreme Court today objected to Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju’s recent remarks about the collective judge appointment system, saying it shouldn’t have happened. It also highlighted the issue of the Center delaying appointments in higher judicial bodies.

Here’s a 10-point guide to this big story:

  1. “When someone in a high position says… it shouldn’t have happened,” the Supreme Court said of Law Minister Kiren Rijiju’s criticism of the judge appointment system. Mr. Rijiju, who has barely concealed his displeasure with the government’s lack of more say in appointing justices to the supreme court, recently launched a fresh attack on the mechanism. current appointment, says the panel system is “foreign” to the Constitution.

  2. The Supreme Court, in its wisdom, created the corporation, he said, noting that before 1991, all judges were appointed by the government.

  3. Speaking at the Times Now Summit, the Law Minister said the Indian Constitution is a “religious document” for people, especially the government. “Anything that is alien to the Constitution just because of a decision of a court or some judge, how can you expect that decision to be supported by the country,” he asked.

  4. The attorney general, on behalf of the Center, said that “sometimes media reports are false”. “Mr. Attorney General, I have ignored all press coverage, but this comes from a sufficiently senior person as well as an interview… I won’t say anything else. If necessary. , we will make a decision,” Judge Kaul told Attorney General R Venkataramani, who is representing the Center.

  5. Regarding the delay in the appointment, the court asked whether the failure of the National Judicial Appointments Committee (NJAC) to approve the assembly was a reason for the government’s displeasure and therefore not removing the name.

  6. The Supreme Court said about the government sitting on recommendations from the university. It also alerts the Center of a judicial decision. “Let’s deal with this and don’t force us to make a judicial decision on this,” the bench said.

  7. “The basic fact is…names are not deleted. How will the system work? Several names have been pending for the past year and a half,” the Supreme Court said.

  8. “There’s no way you can keep the names, that frustrates the whole system… And sometimes when you appoint, you pick some names from the list and don’t remove the others. What you do is you effectively break seniority,” the court added.

  9. The Supreme Court added that many of the recommendations were pending for four months and were overdue. The timelines must be respected, it said. The highest court mentioned that one lawyer whose name was offered has died, while another has withdrawn consent.

  10. The Court has asked the Attorney General and General Counsel to convey the court’s opinion to the Center regarding the delay in delisting to higher judicial authorities proposed by the Supreme Court class. . The matter was adjourned for hearing on December 8 after the Attorney General and the Attorney General assured the court that they would look into the matter.


News7F: Update the world's latest breaking news online of the day, breaking news, politics, society today, international mainstream news .Updated news 24/7: Entertainment, the World everyday world. Hot news, images, video clips that are updated quickly and reliably

Related Articles

Back to top button