Yesterday’s high-powered law ministry meeting with a who’s who of the legal profession, reportedly resulted in a consensus from most present about the need to abolish the existing collegium system of judicial appointments, with the government now producing a draft.
The three hour meeting, according to The Hindu, would now result in the government drafting a new version of the previous government’s Judicial Accountability Commission (JAC) Bill.
The former government’s draft provided for three Supreme Court judges on the JAC, including the CJI, alongside the law minister and two “eminent citizens” selected by the CJI, prime minister and the Lok Sabha’s leader of the opposition.
The government
Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi said:
The predominant view at the meeting was that the collegium system has failed and it needs to be changed.
Law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad told the Times of India and others:
the government respects the independence of the judiciary and there is no question of going back to the pre-1993 position where executive had the primacy in appointment of judges
Consensus?
Presumably due to confidentiality restrictions imposed on participants, none of the media reports quoted anyone other than the law minister and law officers by name but apparently most other were united. An unnamed “top source” told TOI:
There was a consensus that the collegium system of appointing judges to high courts and SC needs improvement and that the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) as an instrument must be considered to replace the existing system
And a participant said, according to TOI:
Location of power is not important, it is important to have people who are good, intellectually, in terms of integrity and more importantly can bring repute to the system
Upendra Baxi, one of two legal academics at the meeting alongside Madhava Menon, was the lone somewhat critical voice, according to TOI and DNA. TOI reported:
Former Delhi University vice-chancellor Upendra Baxi was more cautious in his opinion. He said there has been no empirical evidence to prove that whatever system has been in place has either failed or worked well.
Meanwhile, Fali Nariman and Soli Sorabjee reportedly said at the meeting, according to DNA, that there shouldn’t be any tinkering with the basic structure of the Constitution.
The judges
No one managed to get a comment from any of the judges present, but DNA cited one participant’s account that:
even former chief justices, who headed the collegiums during their tenure, were of the opinion that the system has failed to deliver and it should be substituted with a commission comprising majority of the Supreme Court judges.
Comments
Let nominations be made easier (lower the bar), but let it not carry as much weight as the deliberations of the Committee.
Without demonstrated positive qualities of integrity and intellectual capacity having been proven from past performance, no candidate should be able to go past a qualifying sieve.
The recommendations and the full rationale behind them should be public record. Dissenting notes if any should be included in the record.
The biggest problem is what happens off the public gaze.
There should be regular 'post mortem's of each recommendation of the Committe 3 or 5 years hence, to review/re-evaluate past decisions and draw a record of lessons learnt. This activity might summon past members of the Committee. Everything should be public record!
Regards, T&A (Transparency and Accountability)
This is unnecessary intellectual fart and always trying to be different from others is nauseating.
The collegium system has had its flaws, but it's also introduced some fantastic jurists into the bench, and it is not at all a given that a JAC would have done any better and would not have resulted in some unsuitable candidates being elevated, etc...