New Delhi, April 11: Eminent lawyers Ram Jethmalani and Anil Diwan Saturday opposed the new system for senior judges’ appointments, contending respectively that government as the biggest litigant could not take this role, and affect the judiciary’s independence but senior counsel TR Andhyarujina pitched for giving the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) a chance.
“We must have a system of appointment of judges where a litigant has no voice in the appointment of judges,” Jethmalani said at a seminar here, as he assailed the presence of the Union law minister as one of the six members of the NJAC.
Contending the litigant goes to the court against corrupt and illegal actions of the executive, Jethmalani said, “Therefore, process for the appointment of judge should be such that it should not create a slightest impression of prejudice in the mind of the litigants.”
In his keynote address at the seminar organised by the Res Publican Law Society, on “The National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014”, Jethmalani said that there must be complete respect and distance between judges and the litigant. He expressed an apprehension that the law minister’s presence could result in a situation of quid pro quo in the selection of judges for appointment to higher judiciary.
“Corrupt politicians always want corrupt judiciary,” Jethmalani said making an impassioned plea to keep executive off in the appointment of judges.
Parliament in 2014 had amended the constitution to replace the collegium system of appointment of judges by the NJAC. The National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014 had also been passed in August 2014.
Contending that the law minster had no role in the NJAC, Jethmalani said that instead an eminent jurist should be there to represent the legal fraternity and one from the academic world. He described as “vote bank politics” the provision for the representative of the scheduled caste/tribes, weaker sections and minorities in the NJAC.
Opposing the NJAC, Diwan, another eminent jurist, said that the panel would be dependent on the government for all its activities, which may result in coloured or doctored dossiers being placed before the commission of the people to be considered for selection and appointment of judges. IANS
Not Forgetting Myanmar
While a big war is being waged in the Middle East, global attention has moved away from another theatre of...
Read moreDetails
