Judicial Bills: SC keeps issues open, rejects challenge pleas

SC kept all issues raised by petitioners open, to be argued at what it called 'at an appropriate stage.'

Written by Utkarsh Anand | New Delhi | Updated: August 26, 2014 2:09 am
SC termed the petitions as "pre-mature" and declined to admit them for hearing. SC termed the petitions as “pre-mature” and declined to admit them for hearing.

Permitting the government’s argument on the principle of separation of powers, the Supreme Court on Monday refused to stall the parliamentary process initiated by the NDA government to set up a National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) to replace the collegium system for appointments to the higher judiciary.

A three-judge bench led by Justice Anil R Dave refused to entertain a batch of petitions challenging the proposed law. The bench, also comprising Justices J Chelameswar and A K Sikri, termed the petitions as “premature” and declined to admit them for hearing. The bench, however, kept all issues raised by the petitioners open, to be argued “at an appropriate stage”.

During the hearing, the bench agreed with the submission by Attorney General Mukul Rohtagi, who emphasised that the separation of powers was a recognised constitutional principle while stating that a parliamentary process, till its completion, could not be subjected to judicial interference.

He told the bench that the issues relating to the 121st Constitutional Amendment Bill and the NJAC Bill were still within the sphere of the Parliament and hence any interference with the parliamentary process at this juncture was uncalled for.

Rohtagi said stonewalling the process when the Bills are yet to be ratified by the states or receive presidential assent would “lead to chaos and amount to interference with sphere of another institution.” He cited the legal row over creation of Telangana, wherein the court had refused to admit petitions before the pertinent notification was in place.

“You are right in saying that there is separation of powers and it should be respected. Judiciary is a separate institution under this structure… it is very important,” said the bench.

Appearing for the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record (AoR) Association, senior advocate Fali S Nariman said the moot issue of whether the Constitutional Amendment Bill and the NJAC Bill could be challenged at this stage or not should be sent to a five-judge Constitution Bench for consideration.

Nariman and another petitioner, advocate M L Sharma, also raised questions as to how the NJAC Bill was passed by both Houses of Parliament without the President’s assent to the Amendment Bill, which was the basis of empowering the government to bring in the NJAC Bill. They said that without amending the Constitution, passage of the NJAC Bill was illegal and unconstitutional.

Responding, Rohtagi said assent for the NJAC Bill would be taken only after the Amendment Bill is validated.

The court, however, declined to delve into these issues at this stage and asked the petitioners to raise all the points at a later and appropriate stage.

Meanwhile, answering a query by Nariman, the AG made it clear that there was no hiatus as far as appointment of judges was concerned and till the time the government issues a notitication on the new regime, the collegium system is still valid.

The batch of petitions had challenged the proposed law on the grounds of violating the basic structure of the Constitution which ensures independence of the judiciary. They stated that “unbridled power” to the Parliament and the Executive was sought to be accorded by way of the new law, after taking away the primacy of the collective opinion of the Chief Justice of India and other senior Supreme Court judges.

Asking the court to restrain the Centre from seeking ratification by the state legislatures, the petitions said there was an “unwarranted nullification” of the Constitution Bench judgment delivered in the SC AoR Association (Second Judges) case, whereby the nine-judge bench declared that the primacy of appointment had to be with the CJI.

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App

  1. a
    atamprakash s.wadhwa
    Aug 26, 2014 at 3:11 pm
    INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIARY HAS BEEN COMPROMISED IN MY CASE FROM HIGH COURT TO SUPREME COURT. My e-mails being sent to Mr.R.M.Lodha since June 18 , 2014 , asking for personal appointment of Shri R.M.Lodha but he nor his office has a responsibility of replying to the general public who is asking time of only 10 minutes of the Chief Justice Of India .From this act it is clear that Shri R.M.Lodha does not reply to the e-mail or listen to the general public or there is a rule of the SUPREME COURT BEING THE HIGHEST COURT OF INDIA that the Chief Justice Of India has not to reply to the general public.I RECOLLECT THAT WHEN MR.JUSTICE SHRI R.M.LODHA WAS IN BOMBAY HIGH COURT HE WAS NOT AS SUCH .Now I refer to the first interview of Hon'ble Chief Justice India Shri R.M.LODHA ON mail today before taking oath of the CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA '' THE APEX COURT WILL CONTINUE THE '' ACTIVISM '' FOR WHICH IT HAS BECOME KNOWN FOR THE PAST TWO DECADES OR SO COURT SHOULD NORMALLY NOT BE TOUCHING ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS BUT AT THE SAME TIME WHEREVER THERE IS ILLEGALITY WHICH REQUIRES INTERVENTION COURT SHOULD NOT SHIRK RESPONSIBILITY '' . ALSO REFER TO JUSTICE SHRI R.M.LODHA'S STATEMENT IN ALL THE NEWSPAPERS OF INDIA THAT '' AT NO COST THE INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIARY CAN BE ALLOWED TO BE COMPROMISED I WILL BE THE FIRST PERSON TO LEAVE THIS CHAIR IF I KNOW THAT INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIARY HAS BEEN COMPROMISED I WILL NOT HOLD MY OFFICE EVEN FOR A SECOND '' No reply has been received of my e-mails since June 18, 2014 .and my letters sent to CJI residence address and the office address.and to the Secretary General Shri Ravindra Maithani AS PER JUSTICE SHRI R.M.LODHA'S STATEMENT OF I FEEL THAT JUSTICE SHRI R.M.LODHA' WILL NOT SHIRK RESPONSIBILITY AND CORRECT THE ILLEGALITIES OF THE SUPREME COURT BEING THE HIGHEST COURT OF INDIA AND DO JUSTICE BEFORE HIS RETIREMENT .I WOULD REQUEST THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA SHRI R.M.LODHA TO PLEASE CLARIFY IN ALL THE NEWSPAPERS THAT AS PER YOUR PREVIOUS STATEMENT OF NOT HOLDING OFFICE FOR A SECOND , THE PERIOD OF A SECOND AS STATED BY YOUR HONOUR WILL BE COMPLETED BEFORE YOUR HONOUR'S RETIREMENT TENURE OR AFTER YOUR HONOUR'S RETIREMENT TENURE .HOPE TO GET JUSTICE FROM YOUR HONOUR AS PER YOUR STATEMENTS IN ALL THE NEWSPAPERS OF INDIA .
    Reply
  2. R
    Rajagopaln Nadimuthu
    Aug 25, 2014 at 9:25 pm
    Good .The judiciary also must know that it should not trample upon the executive functions and understand its limitations .Both Judiciary and executive must pay complimentary role and not as supplementary .Of late the SC is seen commenting upon the functions of government and subsutes them selves as rulers and make the entire election process as mockery ..If this trend continues ,the people will lose faith on democracy and we will soon become another stan. Only when they see the situation is extraordinary like the regime under UPAII ,seeped in corruption ,they should intervene .This concern must be viewed in the context of the CJ 's recent poser to the government on the appointment LOP by the SC
    Reply