NJAC row: Supreme Court asks government why it rewarded ‘bad appointments’

A Constitution Bench led by Justice J S Khehar took a swipe at the government after Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi sought to blame the Collegium for appointing a judge who could not write even 100 judgments in his entire career.

[related-post]

Defending the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), Rohatgi had said: “There has been an example where hundreds of judgments were reserved (by a judge) but not delivered. This judge did not write even 100 judgments in 15 years of his tenure. It is the Collegium which brought laurels to him… Some names were not worthy of acceptance.”

The Bench, also comprising Justices J Chelameswar, Madan B Lokur, Kurian Jospeh and Adarsh K Goel, however, suggested the government could not put it all on the Collegium when the government offered a post-retirement job to the said judge.

“This particular judge was appointed following the principle of due representation to different sections of the society which you (government) claim is also there under the NJAC. You also talk about giving due representations to different sections. And what did you do after this judge retired? You appointed him to an important post in the National Human Rights Commission,” retorted the bench.

Also questioning the line of argument citing number of judgments delivered by a judge, the Bench said it is not the number but quality of judgments which is of real significance. “The judges dealing with Constitutional matters cannot be compared with those hearing cases under the Rent Control Act or other similar laws,” it added.

Meanwhile, the Bench also questioned the government’s argument that quashing the constitutional amendment and the NJAC Act would not revive the Collegium, which was “dead and buried forever”.

It observed that the top court has in the past nixed certain constitutional amendments that resulted in automatic reviving of the previous legal position.

Concluding his five-day-long arguments, Rohatgi submitted the NJAC was perfectly constitutional and that it would provide for necessary guidelines for appointing judges.