In the past fortnight, there have been two important developments that have had a direct bearing on the relationship between the judiciary on the one hand and the legislature and executive on the other. The first was the refusal by Justice J Chelameswar to attend a meeting of the Supreme Court collegium, citing the lack of transparency in the process relating to the appointment of judges (Express, Sept 2). The second was a statement by the Prime Minister in a TV interview underlining the need to maintain decorum in dealings with the judiciary.
The relationship between the judiciary and Parliament has
been strained since the Supreme Court struck down the National Judicial
Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act in October 2015. It is fairly well-known
that long before the advent of the Indian Constitution, there used to be a
perfect mechanism for appointment of judges to the High Court and Federal
Courts till 1947. The framers of the Constitution incorporated that procedure
for appointments to the Union Judiciary and the High Courts. However, taking
note of certain acts of non-cooperation or overreach by the Union Executive,
the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in The Advocates on Record
Association Vs Union of India (AIR 1994 SC 2041) virtually rewrote the provisions
of the Constitution, conferring primacy on the judiciary, almost to the
exclusion of the executive, in the matter of appointment of judges. This tilt
in the balance of power gave rise to serious structural problems and even that
champion of reform, Chief Justice J S Varma himself, openly stated that the
system that had evolved through the judgment in the Second Judges Case did not
work well and needed reconsideration.
Other jurists and social scientists have expressed similar
concerns, and the acts and omissions of some of the judges appointed through
the collegium system convinced Parliament to come up with an enactment to
inject an element of transparency and objectivity into the process of
appointment of judges. In a rare event, political parties irrespective of their
ideological leanings voted in favour of the NJAC Bill.
The basis on which the Supreme Court struck down the
enactment is a matter of recent history. Several commentaries and analyses have
been made on this matter. Suffice it to say that jurists are yet to come to
terms as to how far the Supreme Court has respected the time-tested principles
of statutory interpretation, the concept of judicial review and balance of
powers enshrined in the Constitution.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Chelameswar demonstrated
how flawed the collegium system has turned out to be. From among the judges who
gave that majority judgment striking down the NJAC Act, Justice Kurian Joseph
too acknowledged the existence of flaws, and even while striking down the Act,
gave a firm suggestion for making amends to the system.
For the most part of it, it is by invoking the doctrine of
ultra vires that an enactment is struck down by constitutional courts whenever
challenged. By its very nature, the doctrine mandates that the court must
demonstrate as to how the Act in its entirety or in part militates against any
provision contained in a superior enactment or the Constitution of the country.
Viewed from this angle, one does not find that the Supreme Court found the NJAC
Act to be contrary to any specific provision of law. Even in the Keshavananda
Bharati case, their Lordships were not able to pick up any specific ratio which
has the effect of totally denuding the power of Parliament to enact laws under
entry numbers 77 and 78 of List 1 of the Seventh Schedule.
The views of jurists apart, it can be stated that the
striking down of the NJAC Act has virtually brought the entire matter
pertaining to the appointment of judges to the level of uncertainty. Questions
are being asked as to how and why the Supreme Court has asked the Executive to
frame a Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) on appointment of judges when it had
categorically pronounced that not only the executive but also Parliament have
no power to take steps or legislate in this regard. Opinions are also being
expressed to the effect that independence in discharge of duties by judges has
been extended to one of independence in appointing themselves.
Be that as it may, the Supreme Court was expected to bring
about a respectable, lawful and perfect solution to the issues that have
emerged in the light of the NJAC judgment. Once the Supreme Court has expressed
its lack of confidence in the executive and Parliament and treated them as
untouchables, there is no point in blaming them for the present situation.
Disturbingly, several subsequent developments, such as the weeping of the Chief
Justice of India during the conference of chief justices and chief ministers
expressing his helplessness in the matter; the observations in a PIL almost
threatening the government with judicial orders; or finding fault with the
speech of the Prime Minister on Independence Day, have not at all added to the
dignity and honour of the judiciary. As observed by jurist Justice H R Khanna, the judiciary cannot take for granted
its dignity or respect. While in quite a large number of cases, it emerged as
the protector of the rights of citizens and the guardian of the law of the
land, instances are not lacking, such as in ADM Jabalpur vs Union of India,
when it utterly failed to protect even the right to life of a citizen, which
one gets by birth and not under any Constitution.
Subsequent apologies or eloquent sermons, which the occasion
did not warrant, can hardly wipe away that blot. For those who are acquainted
with the situation, it is not difficult to imagine what anguish may have forced
Justice Chelameswar to refrain from attending the collegium meeting. His effort
was only to ensure that objectivity and transparency exist in the matter of appointment
of judges. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any serious effort to
address such important issues. Each time efforts are being made only to find
fault with the government.
Irrespective of political ideologies, the governments of the
day hold the higher judiciary in high esteem, even when they suffer judgments
to their detriment. We find that irrespective of the setback in the form of the
judgment on the NJAC Act, or the unfortunate and provocative statements that
have emerged from time to time, the government has chosen not to react to them,
except to reply in a dignified manner.
The observations of the Chief Justice of India on the
Independence Day speech of the Prime Minister were indeed unfortunate and
uncalled for. In fact, it would have been an impropriety on the part of the
Prime Minister had he said anything about the judiciary or the highest court of
the land in a public speech. To find fault with the Prime Minister for not
making a mention of the judiciary or the ongoing unfortunate situation created
by the Supreme Court itself can by no means be said to be in good taste or in
the fitness of things.
There is a hidden message in the observation of the Prime
Minister in his TV interview, that each constitutional organ of the State is
under obligation to respect the other; and to maintain decorum even when
dissent is to be conveyed. The unfortunate part of it is that what prompted the
hidden lesson about the decorum was unquestionably certain statements that
emanated from the head of the judiciary.
Let us hope that a respectable and proper solution is found
to the unfortunate imbroglio; and since the Parliament and the executive were
told point-blank that they have no role worth its name to play in this regard,
the burden of finding a solution squarely rests with the Supreme Court.
By Justice L Narasimha Reddy, former Chief Justic of the
Patna High Court
Courtesy: The New Indian Express
Courtesy: The New Indian Express
No comments:
Post a Comment