When a five-judge Constitution Bench heard suggestions on reforming the collegium system, it was essentially meant to be peaceful. But it turned out to be one marred by constant interruptions, high drama and a walkout by lawyers who felt disgusted on being denied a fair opportunity of hearing.
Nevertheless, indicating at its urgency, the bench fixed Thursday as the next date to hear out the senior lawyers on their suggestions. Justice JS Khehar speaking for the bench said, “We cannot delay as everything (on judicial appointment) is stalled. We do not have too much time.”
The bench heard only senior lawyers besides Attorney General, Solicitor General, noted jurists Fali Nariman, Anil Divan, Rajeev Dhavan, KK Venugopal and TR Andhyarujina.
A lawyer from Mumbai, who has even filed a review petition questioning the NJAC verdict, noted this discrimination and said that the bench was interested to hear only those views it wanted to hear.
Terming judicial appointments to be limited to sons of judges and relatives of senior advocates, advocate Mathew Nedumpara, who was a petitioner in the original hearing of NJAC case, said that the five-judge bench had no jurisdiction to hear these cases. Asked to stop his rant against the judiciary, when Matthew persisted, the bench warned that he will be made to leave the Court. In protest, he walked out of the courtroom.
The drama failed to cease despite the lawyer’s exit as another lawyer in the court pointed out that suggestions must be invited from the society at large as they are the real stakeholders in appointing judges and not just a few senior lawyers. The bench said it was struggling to piece together the diverse suggestions it had received on mail, which it forwarded to the two senior lawyers tasked to compile all suggestions. “It is difficult to say which suggestion to keep and which to reject. Maybe in five years time, circumstances may differ and changes may be needed to this system.”
Noted jurist Fali Nariman had a suggestion in this regard. “I would give the last word to the dissenting judge,” referring to Justice Chelameswar. “It will have far more acceptability,” Nariman added.
The opportunity was God-send for former Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium, who also shared his idea of reforms in the collegium, the same system which selected him as a judge of Supreme Court but which failed to materialize with the Centre refusing to back his appointment. He was all in favour for secrecy in collegium appointments but felt that any offer made to any member of Bar should be “serious” as not appointing him has “serious” consequences.