Collegium system reforms can't be at cost of judicial independence: CJI
At a round-table in UK Supreme Court on Tuesday evening, CJI Gavai said, "There may be criticism of the collegium system, but... judges must be free from external control."
CJI said SC had struck down National Judicial Appointments Commission Act in 2015 as the law attempted to dilute judiciary's independence by giving primacy to the executive in court appointments.
Unwarranted interference led to collegium system, says CJI
Tracing the evolution of the collegium system through two SC judgments in 1993 and 1998, the CJI said the executive had the final say in appointment of judges to Supreme Court and HCs till 1993 and that system saw two senior-most judges of SC getting superseded in the appointment of CJIs (both by the govt headed by Indira Gandhi) in breach of established traditions.
He said the collegium system evolved as judiciary's response to the executive's excesses and unwarranted interference in appointments to constitutional courts.
As per the two judgments concerned, the collegium was to act in unanimity and its decision was to be final, Justice Gavai said, adding that this "sought to ensure independence of judiciary, reduce executive interference and maintain judiciary's autonomy in its appointments".
Quoting B R Ambedkar's words - "our judiciary must both be independent of the executive and must also be competent in itself" - the CJI said the fact that constitutional courts drew salaries from the Consolidated Fund of India made judges independent of the executive.
Referring to Kesavananda Bharati judgment of 1973 that propounded the basic structure doctrine by a 13-judge bench through seven to six majority, CJI Gavai said, "This ruling established a significant judicial precedent, affirming that certain fundamental principles, such as democracy, rule of law, and the separation of powers, are inviolable and cannot be altered."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
25 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Centre to collect signatures of MPs for motion to remove Justice Varma
He said the government is yet to decide whether the motion would be brought in the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha Press Trust of India New Delhi Prominent opposition parties have given their in-principle approval to support the motion to remove Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma and the process of collecting signatures could begin soon, Union minister Kiren Rijiju said on Thursday. He said the government is yet to decide whether the motion would be brought in the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha. For Lok Sabha, signatures of a minimum 100 MPs is required. For the Rajya Sabha, the requirement is the support of at least 50 MPs. He said the signatures will be collected after the government decides on the House where the motion will be brought. The Monsoon session will commence from July 21 and end on August 21. According to the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the houses, the speaker or the chairman, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal (or, in popular term, impeachment) has been sought. The committee consists of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the 25 high courts and a "distinguished jurist." Rijiju said since the matter involves corruption in the judiciary, the government wants all political parties to be on board. On being asked about the report of the in-committee which proved the cash discovery incident at Justice Varma's official residence here, he said the report of the three-judge panel had not indicted Justice Varma and was meant to recommend future course of action as Parliament can only remove a judge A fire incident at Justice Varma's residence in the national capital in March, when he was a judge at the Delhi High Court, had led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of banknotes in the outhouse. Though the judge claimed ignorance about the cash, the Supreme Court-appointed committee indicted him after speaking to a number of witnesses and recording his statement. Then-CJI Sanjiv Khanna is believed to have prodded him to resign but Justice Varma dug in his heels. The apex court has since repatriated him to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work. Justice Khanna had written to the president and the prime minister, recommending the removal, which is the procedure for axing members of the higher judiciary from service.
Hindustan Times
25 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC halves cost imposed on Narcotics Control Bureau by Calcutta HC
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to intervene with an order directing the Narcotic Control Bureau to pay ₹ 1 lakh cost in a case, but reduced it to ₹ 50,000. SC halves cost imposed on Narcotics Control Bureau by Calcutta HC A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and K Vinod Chandran passed the order on Centre's plea challenging the Calcutta High Court's June 16, 2024 order. The high court imposed the cost on the NCB over the delay in appealing against an acquittal in a case. The amount was directed to be paid to West Bengal State Legal Services Authority, Kolkata, within a week. The NCB was directed to recover the cost from its personnel involved in the process of drafting and filing the government appeal. The apex court, however, ordered the cost to be deposited by the government and not the officers. "One thing is clear. There must be either the fault of your lawyer or your officer. It has to be either one of them," the bench told the Centre's counsel. The top court continued, "We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgement. However, the compliance is to be made not by the officer in view of the specific statement made by the Additional Solicitor General but by the petitioner." The law officer pointed out that in several cases, appeals were filed with delay and it was "disturbing". He said some observations from the apex court on the issue would be helpful. "Please understand your position as a lawyer. If they don't come to you, you should know what to do. You don't ask the Supreme Court to issue directions to validate your orders," the bench observed. The NCB's appeal was against the acquittal verdict of a special NDPS court in Barasat. The high court order observed that the NCB was required to apply for a leave to appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. "Narcotic Control Bureau did not do so. Narcotic Control Bureau proceeded to file a government appeal without applying for and obtaining an order under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure corresponding to Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023," it said. The high court said it had pointed it out on May 19 and then in June with the NCB counsel being told that appropriate leave under the provisions was not obtained to file a government appeal. On June 16, however, the NCB's counsel sought to withdraw the appeal along with connected applications. "In view of the conduct of Narcotic Control Bureau, as noted above, granting unconditional leave to withdraw, as prayed for, will not suffice interest of justice. Narcotic Control Bureau must be put on terms," the high court said as it saddled the NCB with ₹ 1 lakh. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Justice Varma case: House to set up a probe panel, reduce three-month timeframe
AN INQUIRY committee will be set up by the presiding officer of the House concerned to probe charges against Supreme Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma during the coming Monsoon Session of Parliament. Sources said the timeline for the panel to submit its report will be crunched from three months, so that action against the judge, from whose residence stacks of currency notes were allegedly recovered, is not further delayed. 'Matters related to the judiciary must be beyond politics, so the government has reached out to all the prominent parties and the process (of removal of Justice Varma) would be a unified stand. The government will start collecting the signatures of MPs – after deciding which House should initiate the process – next week,' Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said on Thursday. 'The Chair will then constitute a committee as per the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, and the committee will table the report, following which the discussions will take place,' Rijiju said. Sources in the government said it is exploring 'special provisions to do away with the three-month tenure of the committee'. Incidentally, sources also indicated that the government was in no hurry over the Opposition's demand for the removal of Allahabad High Court judge Justice Shekhar Yadav, over a controversial speech made by him at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event last year. While admitting that more than 50 Opposition MPs had signed on the papers required to initiate the process for the removal of Justice Yadav, and that their signatures had been verified, a source said the case could not be compared to Justice Varma's. 'There is a stark difference between the charges of corruption and others. The Opposition has initiated the move against Justice Yadav in the Rajya Sabha, and Chairman Jagdeep Dhankar is expected to give a ruling on the notice in the Monsoon Session. Earlier, the government as well as some Opposition parties had also suggested dispensing with a probe committee of the House in the case of Justice Varma since a three-member committee appointed by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had already indicted him. Rijiju said Thursday that the government, however, decided on holding a House probe too. 'We would like to go by established rules in this.' The Monsoon Session of Parliament, which was earlier scheduled from July 21 to August 12, has now been extended till August 21. A government official said, 'We hope the removal process (of Justice Varma) will be over in this session itself.' Asked about the extended session, Rijiju said the government has 'legislative business to finish' and that it would come out with the agenda soon. An all-party meeting to discuss the business of the government is expected to be held on July 20. The panel set up by the Supreme Court in the Justice Varma case had submitted its report upholding allegations that wads of currency notes were discovered at his official residence on March 14, by authorities called to the spot due to a fire. As per the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, a complaint against a judge requires as a first step a resolution signed by at least 100 members if moved in the Lok Sabha and 50 members if initiated in the Rajya Sabha. Once the MPs submit the motion, the presiding officer of the House can either accept or reject it. In the case of Justice Varma, the government is yet to decide which House will take up the motion first. But since it is the government initiating the action, and seeking to build political consensus, it is expected that the presiding officer will accept it. After a motion for impeachment is adopted by either House, the Speaker / Chairman constitutes a three-member committee of inquiry, headed by the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge, and including a Chief Justice of any High Court, and a person who is in the opinion of the Speaker/ Chairman, a 'distinguished jurist'. If the committee renders a guilty finding, the report of the committee is then adopted by the House in which it was introduced, and the judge's removal is debated. For an impeachment motion against a Supreme Court or High Court judge to go through, at least two-thirds of those 'present and voting' in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha must vote in favour of removing the judge – and the number of votes in favour must be more than 50% of the 'total membership' of each House. If Parliament passes such a vote, the President eventually signs an order for the removal of the judge.
