This refers to the editorial, “Judiciary v/s ExecutiveIJ” (October 30). The tussle between the two essential pillars of democracy is not new. The appointment of judges to the higher judiciary has always been contentious. Even before the ushering-in of the collegium, there were undue delays in appointments and accusations galore of partiality in judges' apointments. The collegium, of course, was alleged to have an excessive soft-corner for its own. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) could have been one of its kind; but the Supreme Court thought otherwise. Its clear that the two powerhouses are reluctant to let go of their ego. The judiciary is hell-bent on retaining its supremacy over judges' selection and elevation.
The Government is, apparently, upset that its hard labour to put the NJAC has gone waste. Unfortunately, the litigants are the biggest casualties in the never ending cold war between the two. The two have to strike a unanimity soon to amicably arrive at a reasonable Memorandum of Procedure. Differences of opinion, if any, among the collegium members themselves must be swiftly thrashed out. There is no point anymore in continuing to play the blame-game. The Government mustn't forget that it itself is a major party in many pending cases. It wouldn't be bad idea, at least for the sake of common public, if the Union law Minister regularly meets with the five-member collegium of the apex court to expeditiously settle the issue.