Scrap the collegium. Also probe Katju’s charge
Former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju's sensational disclosure that three Chief Justices of India had succumbed to political pressure to give extensions to and then confirm a judge of the Madras High Court during the Congress-led UPA rule, has expectedly raised a political storm. It has also highlighted the urgent need for the replacement of the present opaque collegium system for the appointment of judges to the higher courts. The alternative is the establishment of a Judicial Appointments Commission that will have representation from the legal fraternity as well as the political system. The proposal has been in the pipeline for sometime now, with the previous UPA regime having introduced in Parliament a constitutional amendment Bill along with the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill to change the collegium system where the senior-most judges of the apex court draw up their list and make recommendations to the Government. The constitutional amendment Bill has lapsed in the lok Sabha and will have to be re-introduced. However, the Government is expected to make significant changes to the process of appointment through the proposed commission because there had been discontent over some of the provisions the UPA Government had incorporated. Moreover, the proposed commission could also be mandated to inquire into allegations of misconduct on the part of judges. These and other alterations will need broadbased consultations with experts and the political spectrum, and the Government will do well to hasten the process. The Government must also ensure that the proposed commission does not end up absorbing the ills of the collegium system; after all, the Judicial Appointments Commission too will be a kind of collegium, except that it will be more eclectic than the existing one. The collegium system has suffered from many flaws, primary among being the lack of transparency. The other chink in the armour is, of course, what Mr Katju's disclosure has underscored — that the collegium is prone to political pressure. This is ironical because the system was devised in 1993 precisely to insulate the judiciary from political pressure in the appointment of judges.
But the focus on the need to have a Judicial Appointments Commission as early as possible cannot become an excuse to brush under the carpet the specific issues Mr Katju has raised. While we must look ahead, we have to also address the past. The role of the Chief Justices of India the former Supreme Court judge has named, and that of the then Government — including Mr Manmohan Singh and a few of his Cabinet colleagues — in batting for a tainted judge whom the intelligence agencies had found to have engaged in serious corruption, should be inquired into. There is no disputing that the shameful episode happened, that a note from the Prime Minister's Office in June 2005, which is now in the public domain, confirms that Mr Singh pushed for the appointment of the tainted judge despite the collegium's observations, and that the three Chief Justices, one after the other, reportedly bowed to the Government's wishes. The Congress and the DMK, allegedly at whose behest the controversial judge was given extensions and then confirmed, need a lot of answering to do.