No sanctity of intel reports if details made public: Rijiju on Collegium resolution on judgeship candidates

Kiren Rijiju

Law Minister Kiren Rijiju on March 18 said that there will be no sanctity to the Union government’s efforts to gather intelligence reports on candidates for judgeship if such reports are made public.

The collegium on January 18 released resolutions reiterating its stand on certain candidates. The resolutions cited intelligence reports on the candidates that agencies like Intelligence Bureau (IB) and Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) had gathered on the candidates.

Speaking at the India Today Conclave 2023 on March 18, the Union law minister said that it is the duty of the government to carry out due diligence on names recommended by the collegium. He said, “Otherwise I will be sitting as a postmaster.”

According to Rijiju, the government has the resources to gather inputs from various agencies and form opinions on a candidate and the government takes a call based on these inputs.

He said “ Whenever a name comes to me (for judgeship) I receive numerous complaints, do I make it public? There has to be some probity in public life, a sensible attitude by the people, who sit in a responsible position. I am mindful of my responsibility. I will not divulge information.”

The Union law minister said that the appointment of judges is not a judicial function but an administrative function.

On being asked about the government’s stand on collegium, he said, “Our position is very clear. As long as the collegium system is in place, we will follow it as it is the law. But the appointment of judges cannot be done by judicial order. It is to be done administratively.”

When asked if the government has the last say on the judicial appointment, Rijiju responded “the Constitution says so.”

On being asked about the plea seeking recognition of same-sex marriage in India being referred to the Constitution Bench, Rijiju said, “The Parliament is the reflection of people’s idea, vision and choice.  This has to be debated in the Parliament. SC has its own authority; we are not supposed to encroach upon it.”

He stated that if any law passed by the Parliament does not follow the spirit of the Constitution, SC can strike it down or send it back to the Parliament. He noted that it is for the people to decide how they should be governed.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) will be done by the President on the advice of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India.

Reflecting on this judgment, Rijiju responded that the SC considered the case not because there was a dispute but because someone had filed a public interest litigation. He was not critical of the judgment, the minister added.

He said, “If the CJI or judges sit on every important appointment, who will carry forward judicial work? Judges are responsible for carrying on judicial work and delivering judicial orders.”

Speaking about criticism that the courts face for long holidays, the law minister said, “Judges require holidays, they sit from the morning to evening and deal with cases and administrative work. Due to their constant engagement with work, they have a huge mental pressure so they should go on holidays.”

He also mentioned that in countries like the United States, a judge in the Supreme Court or High Courts deals with 4-5 cases a day, however, judges in India deal with over 50 cases a day, hence they are under constant pressure.

Rijiju said, “In a democratic setup, there can be different opinions. To say there is a confrontation between the judiciary and the government is not correct.” He said if there are any issues, it is not because of the government.

The law minister also condemned Congress MP Rahul Gandhi for his speech in the United Kingdom recently. On the allegation against the weakening of India’s judiciary, Rijiju said “If anybody says the Indian judiciary has been hijacked, it means there is a sinister design. Our judges are not weak; it is a huge blunder for anybody who makes that statement.”