I was wondering whether i am the best or worth a person to speak on a topic
which has created stir among the legal fraternity and Government.
I
was wondering what is this judgment by Supreme Court on rejecting the National
Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act on 16th October 2015.
I wish to list down my interpretation based on the articles read in Indian
Express and Times of India:
· The interference
of executive could create more damage to the Judicial appointments rather than
helping to have a transparency
· The
Judges themselves are the best to appoint fellow judiciary appointees
As a
layman I see this as Supreme Court out rightly (4:1) rejecting the proposal by
Government (i.e. Citizens who are authorizing the politicians to speak on
behalf of them). I agree politicians do not discuss with us any matters after
they are elected to power.
Here
the questions is if Supreme Court can reject a proposal which was intervening
in their process by executive, can I an individual reject any proposal by
Government if it is found to be incorrect or biased or blinded by facts. A big
answer is No (even if the individual is supported / formed by group of eminent
individuals from Business, Film, Academia and Sports). Why? Because who will
implement or endorse the judgment given by this eminent individuals. The
questions that will come up are:
· Who
are these eminent individuals and who gave them the right to judge on issues?
· Do these
eminent individuals have the knowledge / capacity to judge?
· Are
they qualified?
Yes
agreed the rejection of the proposal will have to be taken up in Court (third
party) to decide about it. But in the NJAC Vs Court Judges who should be the
third party?
The
question is how I can decide about a case where I am one of the parties to the
case? But here even if the Court was one of the party it could participate and
not only participate but decide in its own favor.
The
Court said the existing system i.e. Collegium System needs reform.
I
think this is like I reject what you are proposing even though I know that I need
to improve (I know I am not Perfect, but it is still better than your imperfect
proposal)
Here
it is very important to look at some of the questions:
· Was
it right for Supreme Court to decide what is good for them?
· What
are the chances that decisions may have been self biased?
· Is
the Collegium System going to improve the judiciary from here on?
· Is
there an answer to the question posed by Justice Chelameswar “ Question is what is the formula by which
judges who can decide cases quickly and generate confidence in masses be
produced”
· Is
there any answer to the question posed by advocate Mathew Nedumpara “…… in the Supreme Court and 13 high courts,
99 judges belonged to families of judges and senior advocates. “They
constituted 52% of direct appointments made from among lawyers,“
May
be someone has an answer and just a food for thought why not go back to
citizens and ask them whether the Collegium System or NJAC is the correct one.
Oh! Then there will be a scholarly question how can 35.2% of illiterates (in
India) decide about such a important matter and on individuals who have an
impact on this illiterates.
I am
here reminded of a headline appearing in The Institute for Policy Innovation
June 16, 2009:
Who
Will Control The Controller?
Clarification:
I am neither against nor in favor of
Collegium System or NJAC. This is an introspection of a Citizen.
No comments:
Post a Comment