The Rajya Sabha on Thursday witnessed one
of the most exhaustive debates in recent memory on the appointment of
judges. The following are the basic issues that led to the debate.
How are judges selected under the collegium system now?
In the high
courts, the process is initiated by the respective chief justices. In
the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) takes the
initiative. The final decision is taken by five Supreme Court judges,
including the CJI.
A person should
have practised at least 10 years as a lawyer to become a high court
judge. The chief justice of the high court, with the help of two other
senior-most judges, draws up a panel of prospective candidates. There
is no system of public intimation or advertisements eliciting
applications for the posts. After examining the credentials of the
judges on factors such as competence and integrity and state
intelligence inputs, the high court chief justice forwards the names of
the prospective judges to the CJI for confirmation.
The CJI consults
the collegium of four other senior-most judges of the apex court. The
CJI and the collegium can approve or reject the names.
If the collegium approves the names, they are sent to the President of India through the Union government for appointments.
Supreme Court
judges are appointed from among the chief justices of the various high
courts or the senior-most presiding judges of the high courts.
The Supreme Court
has the prerogative of appointing prominent lawyers with over 10 years’
experience as a judge of the apex court. Justice Santosh Hegde and
Justice Kuldeep Singh (both have retired) were appointed to the Supreme
Court directly from the bar where they were practising. But the
convention had been stopped since then
Does the government have any role in the selection of the judges?
The government does not have the final say in the matter as the entire power is vested in the collegium and the CJI
What if the government does not agree with the names suggested by the collegium?
There is no
alternative but to accept the collegium’s decision. The Union
government, through the law ministry, can raise queries on suitability
or eligibility of the candidates. Beyond this, the government can do
little
Law
minister Kapil Sibal said the Supreme Court “rewrote” the Constitution
in 1993, referring to the introduction of the collegium system that
year. Is that correct?
Yes. In 1993, in what is popularly
known as the “Advocates On Record” case, a nine-judge Constitution
bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the statute had given the power
and primacy of appointments of judges to the judiciary to insulate it
from executive or legislative control and to ensure its absolute
independence. The bench had given the ruling on a petition filed by
the Advocates on Record Association, relating to disputes on transfer
and appointments of judges.
Advocates on Record is a designated group in the Supreme Court. It alone has the right to file any petition in the apex court
What was the system in existence before 1993?
Since the
inception of the Indian Constitution, there has been no formal or
codified system to appoint judges. In other words, an informal process
existed then, too, but the executive had a role. Judges were appointed
largely through consultations between the Chief Justice of India and
the Union government. The judiciary and the executive were more or
less equal partners in the consultation process
What is the new law trying to do?
Parliament is trying to ensure a
role by the executive and indirect role by leader of Opposition in the
Lok Sabha. Under the new proposal, the selection panel will have the
Union law minister and two eminent persons from different walks of life,
besides the CJI and two senior-most judges. The names of the eminent
persons will be suggested by a separate panel of the Prime Minister, the
CJI and leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
The new system, if clears all the
hurdles, will have six persons, unlike the five earlier. Of the six,
three will not be apex court judges, unlike the existing system where
all the five persons are Supreme Court judges
Sibal spoke of bhai-bhatijagiri in the context of relatives of judges practising as lawyers. Are there any norms on this?
There is no
statutory or constitutional bar on kith and kin of judges practising
in the same courts. Most judges, upholding the highest standards of
judicial ethics and propriety, ensure that they do not preside over
cases handled by the relatives
Arun Jaitley said “the
desire of a post-retirement job influences pre-retirement judgments”.
Are there any norms governing post-retirement jobs?
There is no ban on post-retirement
jobs for judges. However, judges who retire cannot practise in the high
court where they had presided over cases. In the case of the Supreme
Court, the judges cannot practise once they have retired. They can take
up arbitration-related assignments.
Several judges do get
post-retirement jobs in a host of quasi-judicial or constitutional
bodies across the country. This is because the act under which the
tribunals or quasi-judicial bodies are constituted mandates that those
heading the posts must invariably be a sitting or retired judge of the
high court or Supreme Court. Some examples are the National Human
Rights Commission, the State Human Rights Commission, tribunal TDSAT,
the Competition Commission of India and the Armed Forces Tribunal
What is the Supreme Court’s view on the new bill?
Successive CJIs
and the present incumbent, P. Sathasivam, have strongly opposed any
tinkering with the collegium system. The advocates or the bar
community are also fiercely opposed to any executive involvement in the
appointment process on the ground that it would erode the
independence of the judiciary. Justice Sathasivam had earlier told The Telegraph:
“The government cannot include their names as, by and large, the high
court and the Supreme Court collegium keep everything in mind while
giving representations to all sections. Law officers like advocate-
generals, additional advocate- generals, central government law officers
and government pleaders are provided representation in the
appointments.”
No comments:
Post a Comment