NJAC-Collegium tussle is now out in the open.Its out in public domain.Both sides through experts and lawyers are defending their positions depending on which side they are.Both sides have lawyers and judicial experts of great reputation and eminence.Both sided are basically engaged in identifying the flaws of the opposite sides and therefore defending the need for change.Identifying the positive expect of both the system is just a passing comment not of any immense importance.
What is largely missing the picture is that the discussion per se is restricted purely between NJAC and Collegium.Its been either this or that.How about a third alternative.Has anyone taken pain in arriving at a third consensus.Since both systems have some positive aspects in it how about getting them together and arriving at a third option.The hitch is the law minister.Forget him.How about creating a Commission of only four people.Chief Justice of SC,Senior most Judge,PM and LoP.Let there be a majority of either 4-0 or 3-1 to pass an appointment.Let veto be only with Chief Justice if the decision is 3-1 with CJ dissenting.In this way a middle path could be worked out.
It doesn't make sense to allow judges to judge themselves as well as select themselves.This is against common sense.Judiciary cannot look upon legislature as an incompetent brat who doesn't have the knowledge neccessary to select people of judicial eminence and prominence.In democracy legislature and executive have as much equal importance as judiciary and therefore it does make sense that all three arms of the constitution work together for the welfare of not just the nation but also of individual institutions.At the end of the day public in general will always give more respect to the judges and judiciary than the politicians and therefore the importance and prominence of judiciary will always remain intact irrespective of how the judges have been selected.Cleansing of the system is undertaken purely because the best among the good end up occupying coveted positions followed by those who are good.We cannot afford to place only the good people there and leave out the best because they could not be suitably considered for appointment.
What is largely missing the picture is that the discussion per se is restricted purely between NJAC and Collegium.Its been either this or that.How about a third alternative.Has anyone taken pain in arriving at a third consensus.Since both systems have some positive aspects in it how about getting them together and arriving at a third option.The hitch is the law minister.Forget him.How about creating a Commission of only four people.Chief Justice of SC,Senior most Judge,PM and LoP.Let there be a majority of either 4-0 or 3-1 to pass an appointment.Let veto be only with Chief Justice if the decision is 3-1 with CJ dissenting.In this way a middle path could be worked out.
It doesn't make sense to allow judges to judge themselves as well as select themselves.This is against common sense.Judiciary cannot look upon legislature as an incompetent brat who doesn't have the knowledge neccessary to select people of judicial eminence and prominence.In democracy legislature and executive have as much equal importance as judiciary and therefore it does make sense that all three arms of the constitution work together for the welfare of not just the nation but also of individual institutions.At the end of the day public in general will always give more respect to the judges and judiciary than the politicians and therefore the importance and prominence of judiciary will always remain intact irrespective of how the judges have been selected.Cleansing of the system is undertaken purely because the best among the good end up occupying coveted positions followed by those who are good.We cannot afford to place only the good people there and leave out the best because they could not be suitably considered for appointment.
No comments:
Post a Comment