On a day Lok Sabha passed a bill aimed at increasing over twofold the salaries of Supreme Court and high court judges, several members underlined the supremacy of Parliament over the judiciary. The salary hike, based on the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission for officers of all-India services, will take effect from January 1, 2016. The High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Amendment Bill also proposes revision of the rates of house rent allowance from July 1, 2017, and of sumptuary allowance from September 22, 2017. However, unless Rajya Sabha clears it on the last day of the winter session Friday, the hike will have to wait till the budget session. There are indications that the budget session may begin towards the end of January. While MPs welcomed the bill, many of them stressed the supremacy of Parliament. Deputy Speaker M Thambidurai, who was in the chair, observed that the function of judiciary was to interpret the law. “They can’t legislate the law,” he said. Kalyan Banerjee (Trinamool) suggested that MPs across parties approach the Supreme Court and tell it “it is not your function” to legislate. “Legislation should be left to Parliament. Day by day, the conflict is emerging and unless it is stopped by the judiciary, in 10-15 years, there will be a direct conflict between judiciary and Parliament.” Banerjee asked Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad if the administrative side of the Supreme Court and High Courts were liable to give explanation to Parliament. “Because the budget of the judiciary is sanctioned by Parliament, they owe an explanation to Parliament,” he said. MPs also called for greater transparency in judicial appointments, measures to ensure accountability of judges, and an all-India judicial service for their recruitment. Prasad said perhaps the time had come to reflect upon the collegium system providing for judges appointing judges. A bill seeking to set up the National Judicial Appointments Commission, passed by both Houses of Parliament unanimously, had been struck down by the Supreme Court in 2016. “If the polity of the country decide to speak in one voice, we’ll find a way out. I am getting the sense of the House,” Prasad said. He said before 1993, when government had a greater say in judicial appointments, the system had produced some of India’s finest judges. Responding to queries on the memorandum of procedure — a document to guide appointment and postings of judges of the SC and the 24 high courts — the minister said it was a “a work in progress”. A Sampath (CPM) said even the minister knew “there are quite a lot of very senior Supreme Court lawyers who charge Rs 50 lakh per day. It has become a rich man’s game. Now business class judiciary is there. There is judiciary for the passengers and persons travelling in unreserved bogeys.” Velagapalli Varaprasad Rao (YSR Congress) said, “The minister should form an expert group or a committee to evolve a mechanism to make the judiciary accountable to bring in transparency and to bring down the pendency of cases”. P Ravindra Babu (TDP) said Parliament was supreme because “we represent the collective mandate of people”. Babu said the constitutional mandate was vested on Parliament and hence “we (Members of Parliament) should prevail over the Supreme Court”. He felt there should be accountability of judges and they should be punished for wrong judgments passed. Tathagata Satpathy (BJD) suggested that court cases in which the verdict had been passed be brought within the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. He said the “abominable” contempt of court provision should be removed from the statute. Several members used the opportunity to demand that the salaries of MPs, too, should be revised.
