The Collegium system did not bring about judicial independence but led to “intra-dependence” within judiciary, said the Centre in defence of its NJAC law before the Supreme Court on Friday. As a result, Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar alleged that High Court Chief Justices never independently gave their view on recommendations made by the Supreme Court collegium as any dissent would place their elevation at risk.
Kumar said, “There was a Chief Justice who had said I had to obey my masters to appoint judges in High Court as I was up for elevation to Supreme Court.” The argument came at a defining moment in the hearing on NJAC law when the Bench has to decide whether the challenge to NJAC should be referred to a larger Bench. While the five-judge Bench is divided on the question whether to test the new law without going into the validity of the Collegium, introduced by a nine-judge Bench decision in 1993, the bench was conscious of the fact that even if the NJAC was declared unconstitutional, it will result in a void as the interpretation of Article 124 and 217 (dealing with appointment of SC and HC judges) given by the 1993 verdict is under a cloud.
The Bench of Justices JS Khehar, J Chelameswar, Madan B lokur, Kurian Joseph, and Adarsh Goel said, “Assuming the NJAC law is quashed, definitely there is a loud voice that says the judgment (of 1993) was not good and that Article 124 was wrongly interpreted. It will create a void. We cannot decide and leave it open.” Senior advocate Harish Salve who appeared for Haryana argued that a decision by a larger Bench will carry more authority on a matter pivotal to not just judiciary but democracy as a whole, where Court cannot afford to go wrong.