Open Forum
New
Delhi, 12 August 2014
Judicial Appointments
COMMISSION VS COLLEGIUM
Dr. S.Saraswathi
(Former Director,
ICSSR, New Delhi)
The Government has introduced the
National Judicial Appointments Commissions Bill 2014 and the 121st
Constitution Amendment bill in the Lok Sabha. It also withdrew the Bill introduced by the
UPA Government that was pending in the Rajya Sabha. Importantly, the new Bill was converted to a Constitutional
Amendment as recommended by the Select Committee whereby, if passed, it will insert
Articles 124A, 124B and 124C as making any change in the Articles would have
been impossible without a Constitutional Amendment.
Notably, the Amendment seeks to
establish a 6-member Judicial Commission in the place of the Collegium System
for appointment of judges. Under the new procedure judges would be appointed
and transferred by the Commission which would be headed by the Chief Justice of
India, two senior Supreme Court judges, two eminent personalities and the Union
Law Minister.
An upset Chief Justice Lodha was
prompt in his response by vigorously defending the Collegium System and
remarked that “failure of the Collegium System would mean the failure of the
whole judiciary”. Indeed, a natural reaction
as most judges of the Supreme Court today are appointed under the Collegium
System.
Questionably, the issue is about the
wisdom of discarding a system because of a few wrong appointments. Resulting in a raging
controversy and heated debates in Parliament and media ever since former
Supreme Court Judge and Chief Justice of the Madras High Court Markandey Katju
made startling revelations of naked political interference in judges’ appointment.
Katju first alleged that an
influential and important political ally of the UPA Government pressurized the
then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to support extension of a Madras High
Court’s Additional Judge’s term, despite several allegations of corruption and
adverse reports against the judge.
Additionally, there were attempts to
elevate another Madras High Court tainted judge to the Supreme Court through
the Collegium system. But this was thwarted due to advocates’ protests. Worse,
the ex Supreme Court judge continues to expose more instances of judicial
corruption.
Undeniably, these startling disclosures
cannot be brushed aside as part of manipulative tricks to obtain and retain
positions and status. For, not only do they
have immense political significance but also raise fundamental questions about
the very system of judicial appointments.
True, judicial officials directly or
indirectly referred to in Katju’s revelations, the politicians involved and the
compulsions of running Coalition Governments which put the Prime Minister under
severe pressure form only one part of the story. More important is the inherent
weaknesses in the method of judges’ appointment which leaves scope for corrupt
practices, political interference and non-juridical considerations in judges’
selection and transfers.
Pertinently, as per the Constitution
the Chief Justice and other Supreme Court judges are appointed by the President
and removed only by a Presidential order passed after the judge is impeached by
Parliament. The Chief Justice of High Courts is appointed by the President
after consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the Governor in a State
and other judges are selected after consultations with the Chief Justice. The
procedure for High Court judges’ removal is the same as for Supreme Court.
Recall, the Collegium System of
appointing judges was introduced in 1993 after the Supreme Court established
the principle of judicial independence in the “three judges’ cases”. In the first case, judges’ appointment,
described as a “sacred ritual”, was entrusted to the Executive and kept secret
and confidential. The Court felt this could
result in wrong appointments, transfers, encourage nepotism and even “trade offs”. Discontent over this procedure surfaced.
In the second case, the mode of judges’
appointment was changed. It gave primacy
to the judiciary with the CJI as the head. The third case introduced the
Collegium System with the CJI as the head and comprising two senior-most Supreme
Court judges. For selection of High Courts judges, the Collegium comprised the
CJI and four senior-most judges which was to review recommendations made by a
similar Collegium in High Courts.
In 2003, the NDA Government
introduced the Constitution 98th Amendment Bill which provided for
the constitution of a Judicial Commission under the CJI with two senior-most Supreme
Court judges, Union Law Minister, and an eminent citizen nominated by the
President in consultation with the Prime Minister as members.
Britain constituted an independent
Commission in 2006 to strengthen the independence of the judiciary. Its JAC
(Judicial Appointments Commission) is an executive, non-departmental public
body sponsored by the Justice Ministry. Members of the Commission are drawn
from the judiciary, legal profession, non-legally qualified judicial
office-holders and public.
In most countries, the executive
retains the power of appointing judges, but not without controversies over the
efficacy of the system in ensuring judicial independence. Leading to strong public opinion against the
role of the executive in choosing judges.
Australia and Canada made changes
and redefined “merit” in judicial appointments to make judiciary more
representative.
Political involvement in judicial
appointments is more direct in the USA. where the Attorney-General in
the Department of Justice is responsible
for making recommendations to the President for federal judicial
positions. No statutory qualifications are prescribed and
the Department makes an assessment of the merits and reputation of the
candidates.
Significantly, modern democratic
Constitutions accept the doctrine of separation of powers. This puts the Executive and the Judiciary
within their specific jurisdiction.
However, the question of appointment of judges could not be completely
separated from the executive. The
result, in course of time, is seen in increasing number of allegations and
suspicions of political and other interference in the functioning of the
judiciary and in the appointment of judges.
Judges in any society under any form
of Government are treated with utmost respect. In the ancient and medieval monarchies, when
the king was also the judge to decide disputes and punish offenders, judicial
impartiality was counted as the foremost quality of a good ruler.
There are specific references to
appointment of judges and their qualifications in legends. Only persons with sound knowledge of law and
legal procedures, great scholars with profound knowledge of scriptures and
reputed for righteous conduct were appointed as judges according to Mahabharat’s
Shantiparva. This was part of “Rajadharma”.
Sukraneeti
mentions impartiality, fairness, and sobriety as indispensable qualities of a
judge. It states, judgments should be
based on righteousness and not delivered in anger or greed. Temptation (to
accept bribes), attachment to a party in
a dispute, fear of consequences of his judgment, malice and secret meeting with
a party in a dispute are mentioned as five evils to be shunned by judges. The Katyayana Smriti asserts, judges should
be sweet-tempered, kind, clever, energetic and not greedy. More than that, they
were expected to be well versed in many shastras.
In sum, judges’ selection and
appointment constitute an important aspect of good governance. Although the
judiciary is concerned mainly with law and justice, judicial interpretation of
law along-with the responsibility to uphold law without fear or flavour places a unique responsibility on judges to
ensure good governance. The quality of any arrangement depends on the quality
of persons executing it. We need to raise our ethical standards in governance
as top priority. Systems cannot be
blamed for operational deficiencies! ---- INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|