Surprised by Supreme Court verdict on NJAC, says Law Minister Sadananda Gowda

Gowda said the will of the people was brought before the Court, noting that the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha had supported the bill "100 per cent" and 20 state legislatures had also cleared it.

By: Express News Service | Bengaluru | Updated: October 16, 2015 2:29 pm
NJAC, njac vs collegium, njac judgement, njac supreme court, Gowda, Law Minister, njac bill, njac act, njac composition, njac vs collegium system, njac vs collegium mrunal, supreme court njac, supreme court njac news “We are surprised by the verdict of the Supreme Court,” Gowda told reporters as the Apex Court, in a watershed judgement, quashed the NJAC Act, enabling the two-decades old collegium system to continue.

Union law minister D V Sadananda Gowda has termed the Supreme Court verdict in the National Judicial Appointments Commission case a surprise. “We are surprised by the Supreme Court verdict, ” the law minister said in Bengaluru.

WATCH VIDEO: A Report On SC Striking Down NJAC, Reviving Collegium System Of Appointing Judges

“It is premature to comment because I have not seen the full text of the verdict. I will consult senior colleagues and the PM and take a decision,” Gowda said.

The law minister said that the NJAC law had the support of the people.

“The bill was completely supported by the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha so it had the 100% support of the people,” Gowda said.

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App

  1. M
    Manoj Bhargava
    Oct 16, 2015 at 8:37 pm
    The judges who gave the judgement knows very well how the judges are being appointed. Hence, no different view could have been taken by them.
    1. Raveendranath MN
      Oct 17, 2015 at 10:22 am
      Landmark verdict. In this era of globalisation, as the govt is the largest litigant against foreign as well as Indian firms/ individuals, it is prudent that it should not appoint the judges. The pre-1993 govt appointed judges had once held that Indians had no right to life during emergency. It was shame and no reverting back to that arrangement. NJAC should be modified by replacing law minister with the inclusion of an eminent member from the bar who is selected by the CJ and senior judges of the SC, and the other two eminent persons shouldn't be private persons but include emeritus professors of law from national law universities or colleges selected by the CJ panel.
      1. Rabindra Nath Roy
        Oct 16, 2015 at 4:33 pm
        The Law Minister could talk so unlawfully was not known earlier, that he did not know that by ushering in 39th amendment by Indira hi having ped as per the consution was also supposed to have been suprted by the mes of people ie no. of MPs and MLAs, and in that case today the democracy would not have been there. That the amendment attempted to legitimize the election of Indira hi that was struck down earlier by Allahabad High court etc. and the bringing in amendments to Consution to nullify that was struck down by the supreme court on the similar ground. The Modi sarkar in the name of transparency is trying to interfere in the appointment, promotion and transfers of Justices of HC and SC as also the CJ and CJI, thus controlling the Judiciary. Since the greatest of the litigants are the state and Central Govt. people would have been left in the draconian era had the NJAC ben upheld or the Govt. had any alternative means to make it operational. The Ministers are all sycophants who speak in order to please their leader overlooking the legal position. Modi did same thing as CM of Gujrat while not allowing the appointment of Lokayukt as per the Act of 1986 and when he lost in HC and SC he legislated a new alternative Lokayukt which if challenged in High court I am sure woul be shot down because the man who is under the Lokayukt for investigation cannot be the person to appoint Lokayukt.
        1. Shama Rao
          Oct 16, 2015 at 1:44 pm
          I am confused whether parliament is supreme or the judiciary. What consutional provision is disregarded in NJAC legislation is yet to be in the public domain.