The Supreme Court (SC) is the centre of attention as a defining moment in India’s judicial history unfolds. For over 16 weeks, legal eagles have been going at each other over the question of whether the SC’s turf is under siege by the government.
At the heart of this conflict is the National Judicial Appointments Commission, or the NJAC. The government has proposed that this 6-member commission, comprising the Chief Justice of India, two senior-most SC judges, the Law Minister and two eminent persons, take charge of the appointment and transfer of judges to the higher judiciary in India.
This would be a change from the traditionally followed collegium system of appointments.
The NJAC system has found many supporters. Attorney General, Mukul Rohatgi, for instance, has been arguing that the NJAC, having been ratified by parliament and 20 states, reflects the "voice of the people". He has also hit out at the opacity in the collegium system and did not shy away from making thinly veiled references to former SC judges as examples of "bad" appointments.
In his arguments, Rohatgi was supported by former attorney general Soli Sorabjee, who pushed for an overhaul of the existing system.
Representing the government of Haryana, senior advocate Harish Salve made a case for giving the NJAC a chance before deciding that it would not work.
The ones who were seeking a middle path, like the BJP-led state of MP, whose advocate KK Venugopal argued that the NJAC be watered down to ensure the supremacy of the judicial members.
Criticism of the NJAC proposal has been equally vociferous.
Fali Nariman, for instance, has called the NJAC an attempt by the government to use the vulnerabilities of the collegium to usurp the powers of judicial appointments. He also argued that the government's method would expose the appointment process to the push and pull of public, political and media pressures.
In this, he got support from Ram Jethmalani, who believes judicial independence would be compromised by allowing the executive a foothold in the system. Jethmalani also argued that the SC judgments which led to the formation of the collegium were binding and could not be overturned.
Anil Divan also threw his hat into the ring, arguing that it was unfair to compare India with other countries due to the extent of diversity in India.
The arguments are done. And the legal community is clearly split down the middle. This leaves the ball in the court of the special bench headed by justice Khehar.
But the suspense is likely to hold for a while longer, with the bench reserving judgment on the matter. And India will have to wait a while longer for what promises to be a turning point in its judicial history.
Watch video for more.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
