Judiciary is one of the pillars from the three high held propositions in democracy. Place of Judiciary is highest where any common man can attain justice through simple methods presented by the constitution. Making it transparent for whole lot of society which wants justice to be delivered free and fair. This powerful pulpit has been conferred to the personalities from whom both the society and constitution want fair justice be delivered. In this free and fair justice deliverance there are a lot of things which must be kept in mind, first appointment of the right person at the top level, second how he be appointed, third election of such person be free, fair and transparent. Every statement made above could be deceiving to any person who will think of it being similar to the other.
I say this because appointment until now had been done by the President on the recommendations of Chief justice of India, no other path had been followed since Independence. Now if there had not been any other precedent which had been followed then what would consider any other type of appointment which could be fair free and transparent. This is a conflict between type of precedent followed and type which must be created which can be better in transparency with fairness and freedom of the appointment. All these arguments take us to the second statement which I made earlier in this paragraph about How he/she must be appointed ? Answer had been sorted a plenty of time through various committees made over to come out with a full proof plan, but every plan had been outdone by the latest decisions.
The collegium system which was started to be followed after the verdicts given on S P Gupta vs union of India & Advocate of India association vs Union of India was contradicted to the fullest by every fora of both executive and judiciary but was implemented. This collegiate system had four members on the top from among the Chief justices of India. They were construed with the the dolt of appointing judges. This system as I earlier said had terrible consequences while appointing judges because; as an executive cannot be run without a check over it in same manner Judiciary cannot be run without involvement of executive which lacked in itself. This lackness was foretold to be overcome by the National Judicial appointment commission way back in the 90's but frequent changes of Government and change in the political atmosphere of the country never found dais for it to be discussed.
When finally recommendations before the United progressive alliance by the Law Commission came, work of its reconsideration started. Unfortunately Bill didn't pass in the UPA government and came stuck with National Democratic Alliance which without wasting time implemented NJAC with some amendments. NJAC constituted of six members, three from the Judiciary (One Chief Justice and two Senior most judges), two eminent jurists to be selected by the team of CJI, Prime minister and the leader of the opposition, Law Minister from among the cabinet of the Government. This appointment was passed by the NDA calling it best ever appointing system till date with the help of the majority of the House.
Amendment came to be as 124A with the number of members being constituting judges, 124B stating the duties by the NJAC for appointment 124C up heaving Parliaments authority over the appointment of the Judges therefore amending article 127 and 128. This chaotic situation was not even over and now it had been quashed y the Supreme court calling it unconstitutional not in favor of free and fair appointments but accepted Governments view that Collegium was incompetent with regards to appointment of Judges. My call on the statement made by the Supreme court as far I could understand the situation is both the executive and the judiciary wanted to have the upper hand by playing victim before each other.
Executive in the NJAC appointment felt it had to be included in the appointment of Judges whereas Supreme Court felt Collegium, although was dragged until few years, had no clear references with regards to the involvement of the executive, but considered it to be independent. Irony of the moment is that Supreme Court quashed the NJAC by saying that even the collegium was incompetent in playing right precedent role therefore saving itself from contradictions from Government side. All the fuss which had been created over the Arun Jaitley's statement of the 'Tyranny of the unelected' states that even the Government fumed over galls that were presented by the Apex court when it thought that at least the fair process of appointment had been constructed. Supreme Court by quashing the NJAC has again thrown ball in Governments court which can also be said by the observer as disrespecting the Parliament and through it the Constitution.
My sole problem with Supreme court is that when it comes to delivering Justice it rely on the evidence provided by the pleader which can be both false and true, there are no such things which proves at a whole that whatever be the judgement it will be truth wins. If it so then whats with the appointment and where do one want transparency if only a minister from the cabinet is involved in the appointment process. There can be ill doings both by the Government and the judicial Judges but that cannot be came over by just saying that something meant unconstitutional so had to be quashed. It could have been easily persuaded into least involvement with proper observance, made on the trust between the Government and the Judiciary.
I know that trust changes with the change of the government but it had to be further subtle. Not that it be quashed that too by overthrowing authority of one over the other. Supreme court could have suggested its implications where Government was at fault without disrespecting both the basic function of the constitution and the Parliament. It could have put its remarks out like it does in all its other problem like stating its official regarding payment and allowance. Justice to be delivered must only be the motive of the Judiciary where any right judges be appointed must be constructed on broad consensus between heads with rationality in judiciary.
Any involvement of Government in the appointment could have also played a fair game if the minister when it came to the appointment could have been restricted from discussing its fair trials from within the Government even clause could have been put up to restrict government in not inquiring regarding the appointment. These practices were followed with the collegium whether with precedence or without precedence but by quashing the ruling made by the Government, it did not kept the basic constitutional authority of the Parliament regarding making laws. Parliament after framing laws has only authority to amend without any indulgence from judiciary which is only restricted unto advising the government in some matters.
Apex court in any country of the world possess highest place as well as highest responsibility to upheld what had been told by the constitution. It is the legal extempore only confined within the boundaries of Constitutional law. It can do things on its own but cannot cross the boundary unless the elected officials do not amend article to mend in their ways. Any amendment could be looked into could be advised to the Parliament regarding the sentiment or regarding any violation which will function after amendment but by denying the basic structure of the Constitution, it has maligned the image of itself.
When the issue of appointment arises if there are involvement by any government dignitary it could have sufficed by allowing the transparency to prevail in between them rather quashing. There could have been various other methods of disagreeing. It was not only the thinking of the ruling party but it got majority view to be implemented. If Judiciary by means of Justice has right to inculcate within Government decisions even the Parliament by involving itself in the appointment has every right in saying who or whom be selected as the top most personality. As every Highest Reverend Judges are saying that it was unconstitutional and did not paid heed to the Judges who'd be appointed, they were not concerned with people's Justicial method to see them.
They could appoint themselves and be independent or they could be appointed by the NJAC with involvement of the government where even a common man would be considered, as it would get the Justice right cause he/she himself made the choice through the minister by appointing the right Judge at the top level. My sole statement is transparency cannot be brought within a group of people who call themselves reverend but they must understand how and for what they must be at the top post. Not for the pleasure to admire their freedom from the government but freedom to take any decision based on evidences and do justice.
Supreme court has every authority which cannot be over looked by anyone from the elected representatives but it has to also see executive as right hand which is ready to walk the path all along, that's what our forefathers intended and created the Judiciary for. Don't try to take an upper hand you will certainly be denied by the same constitution.
I say this because appointment until now had been done by the President on the recommendations of Chief justice of India, no other path had been followed since Independence. Now if there had not been any other precedent which had been followed then what would consider any other type of appointment which could be fair free and transparent. This is a conflict between type of precedent followed and type which must be created which can be better in transparency with fairness and freedom of the appointment. All these arguments take us to the second statement which I made earlier in this paragraph about How he/she must be appointed ? Answer had been sorted a plenty of time through various committees made over to come out with a full proof plan, but every plan had been outdone by the latest decisions.
The collegium system which was started to be followed after the verdicts given on S P Gupta vs union of India & Advocate of India association vs Union of India was contradicted to the fullest by every fora of both executive and judiciary but was implemented. This collegiate system had four members on the top from among the Chief justices of India. They were construed with the the dolt of appointing judges. This system as I earlier said had terrible consequences while appointing judges because; as an executive cannot be run without a check over it in same manner Judiciary cannot be run without involvement of executive which lacked in itself. This lackness was foretold to be overcome by the National Judicial appointment commission way back in the 90's but frequent changes of Government and change in the political atmosphere of the country never found dais for it to be discussed.
When finally recommendations before the United progressive alliance by the Law Commission came, work of its reconsideration started. Unfortunately Bill didn't pass in the UPA government and came stuck with National Democratic Alliance which without wasting time implemented NJAC with some amendments. NJAC constituted of six members, three from the Judiciary (One Chief Justice and two Senior most judges), two eminent jurists to be selected by the team of CJI, Prime minister and the leader of the opposition, Law Minister from among the cabinet of the Government. This appointment was passed by the NDA calling it best ever appointing system till date with the help of the majority of the House.
Amendment came to be as 124A with the number of members being constituting judges, 124B stating the duties by the NJAC for appointment 124C up heaving Parliaments authority over the appointment of the Judges therefore amending article 127 and 128. This chaotic situation was not even over and now it had been quashed y the Supreme court calling it unconstitutional not in favor of free and fair appointments but accepted Governments view that Collegium was incompetent with regards to appointment of Judges. My call on the statement made by the Supreme court as far I could understand the situation is both the executive and the judiciary wanted to have the upper hand by playing victim before each other.
Executive in the NJAC appointment felt it had to be included in the appointment of Judges whereas Supreme Court felt Collegium, although was dragged until few years, had no clear references with regards to the involvement of the executive, but considered it to be independent. Irony of the moment is that Supreme Court quashed the NJAC by saying that even the collegium was incompetent in playing right precedent role therefore saving itself from contradictions from Government side. All the fuss which had been created over the Arun Jaitley's statement of the 'Tyranny of the unelected' states that even the Government fumed over galls that were presented by the Apex court when it thought that at least the fair process of appointment had been constructed. Supreme Court by quashing the NJAC has again thrown ball in Governments court which can also be said by the observer as disrespecting the Parliament and through it the Constitution.
My sole problem with Supreme court is that when it comes to delivering Justice it rely on the evidence provided by the pleader which can be both false and true, there are no such things which proves at a whole that whatever be the judgement it will be truth wins. If it so then whats with the appointment and where do one want transparency if only a minister from the cabinet is involved in the appointment process. There can be ill doings both by the Government and the judicial Judges but that cannot be came over by just saying that something meant unconstitutional so had to be quashed. It could have been easily persuaded into least involvement with proper observance, made on the trust between the Government and the Judiciary.
I know that trust changes with the change of the government but it had to be further subtle. Not that it be quashed that too by overthrowing authority of one over the other. Supreme court could have suggested its implications where Government was at fault without disrespecting both the basic function of the constitution and the Parliament. It could have put its remarks out like it does in all its other problem like stating its official regarding payment and allowance. Justice to be delivered must only be the motive of the Judiciary where any right judges be appointed must be constructed on broad consensus between heads with rationality in judiciary.
Any involvement of Government in the appointment could have also played a fair game if the minister when it came to the appointment could have been restricted from discussing its fair trials from within the Government even clause could have been put up to restrict government in not inquiring regarding the appointment. These practices were followed with the collegium whether with precedence or without precedence but by quashing the ruling made by the Government, it did not kept the basic constitutional authority of the Parliament regarding making laws. Parliament after framing laws has only authority to amend without any indulgence from judiciary which is only restricted unto advising the government in some matters.
Apex court in any country of the world possess highest place as well as highest responsibility to upheld what had been told by the constitution. It is the legal extempore only confined within the boundaries of Constitutional law. It can do things on its own but cannot cross the boundary unless the elected officials do not amend article to mend in their ways. Any amendment could be looked into could be advised to the Parliament regarding the sentiment or regarding any violation which will function after amendment but by denying the basic structure of the Constitution, it has maligned the image of itself.
When the issue of appointment arises if there are involvement by any government dignitary it could have sufficed by allowing the transparency to prevail in between them rather quashing. There could have been various other methods of disagreeing. It was not only the thinking of the ruling party but it got majority view to be implemented. If Judiciary by means of Justice has right to inculcate within Government decisions even the Parliament by involving itself in the appointment has every right in saying who or whom be selected as the top most personality. As every Highest Reverend Judges are saying that it was unconstitutional and did not paid heed to the Judges who'd be appointed, they were not concerned with people's Justicial method to see them.
They could appoint themselves and be independent or they could be appointed by the NJAC with involvement of the government where even a common man would be considered, as it would get the Justice right cause he/she himself made the choice through the minister by appointing the right Judge at the top level. My sole statement is transparency cannot be brought within a group of people who call themselves reverend but they must understand how and for what they must be at the top post. Not for the pleasure to admire their freedom from the government but freedom to take any decision based on evidences and do justice.
Supreme court has every authority which cannot be over looked by anyone from the elected representatives but it has to also see executive as right hand which is ready to walk the path all along, that's what our forefathers intended and created the Judiciary for. Don't try to take an upper hand you will certainly be denied by the same constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment