The tussle between the Centre and the Judiciary intensified on Tuesday during the arguments on the validity of National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) with the Supreme Court asking the Government to provide the list of “improper” appointment of judges made by collegiums during the last two decades. The apex court’s move came after the Bench took exception to the reiteration of Attorney General Mukul Rohatagi of complaints over the improper appointments of judges by the collegiums system.
Rohatagi’s repeated usage of “judges appointing judges” and observation of “BR Ambedkar would have turned in his grave at the way power was taken away by the executive” was countered by the Judges who asked the Centre to provide the list of improper appointments, if any, by the collegiums for the past two decades.
The exchanges took place as arguments resumed in the case challenging the NJAC Act which seeks to replace the two-decades-old collegium system. “What is thisIJ You (Centre) use it just because this is a catchy phrase. It cannot be like that. The President appoints the judges,” the five-member Constitution Bench headed by Justice JS Kehar said.
The Bench’s observation came when Rohatgi said, “The Constitution framers did not think and envisage that the judges will appoint judges. This (collegium) system was foreign to the Constitution. Ambedkar would have turned in his grave considering what happened to Article 124 in 1993.”
“With all that is happening, Ambedkar would have, by now, turned many times,” hit back the bench, which also comprised justices J Chelameswar, M B lokur, Kurian Joseph and Adarsh Kumar Goel.
Rohatgi said that it was the will of the people to have a “transparent, accountable and criteria-based” appointment of judges through the NJAC. He described the junked collegium system akin to “you scratch my back, I will scratch yours”.
When the bench said “this is a serious business. The only problem is that we cannot leave it to God. The appointment of judges is not a hit-and-trial business”, Rohatgi countered saying: “Hit-and-trial is part of Constitutional evolution. NJAC should be given a try”.
Earlier, the court had rejected the Centre’s plea that the petitions against the NJAC be referred to either nine or 11 judges Bench. The Bench, however, had clarified that the issue relating to challenge to the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014 can be referred to a larger Bench at the later stage, if required.