Latest news with #NationalJudicialAppointmentsCommissionAct
Hindustan Times
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
The need to find common ground
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai's advice to the Union government to refrain from selectively acting on collegium recommendations is timely. HT reported on Thursday that CJI Gavai issued this message after presiding over his first collegium meeting on May 26. According to people familiar with the matter, CJI Gavai was emphatic that segregating names from a batch of recommendations not only disturbs the seniority of judges but also sends an improper message about the collegium's authority and functioning. India has a nuanced process to pick judges for constitutional courts — where the senior-most judges pick judicial candidates and their names are confirmed by the executive, pending background checks. Selectively picking candidates out of a batch of names recommended by the collegium creates an unfavourable perception of bias and hurts the public standing of the judiciary. The smooth running of the judiciary — one of the pillars of India's democracy — depends on an honest and transparent working relationship between the courts and the executive. The selective picking of names by the executive, therefore, threatens to upset that delicate balance by creating an uneven playing field where some names are given precedence over others. Not only is this detrimental to critical processes such as seniority and filling of vacancies but also the standing of particular judges. This is not the first time such concerns have been raised. In 2014, then CJI RM Lodha wrote to then law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, objecting to the government's unilateral decision to drop former solicitor general Gopal Subramanium from a list of four recommended judges for the Supreme Court. Subramanium later withdrew his nomination. Between 2022 and 2023, a bench led by justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul noted that 'selective appointments' damaged the 'element of workable trust' needed between the judiciary and the executive, and sent 'a wrong signal'. The relationship between the government and the judiciary has remained fraught since a showdown over the proposed National Judicial Appointments Commission Act. This newspaper has been a constant advocate for greater transparency in the working of the collegium. But just because the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) — which guides the appointment and transfer of judges in constitutional courts — does not explicitly prohibit segregation, it doesn't mean that the practice should continue. The Centre should reconsider its stance.
Scroll.in
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Collegium system imperfect but preserves ‘judiciary's autonomy', says Supreme Court judge
The Supreme Court's Justice Surya Kant has said that the collegium system of appointing judges, despite its imperfections, serves as a 'crucial institutional safeguard' and preserves the judiciary's autonomy, The Indian Express reported on Sunday. Kant, who is slated to become the next chief justice of India, said that the collegium system 'significantly limits interference by the Executive and Legislature, thereby preserving the Judiciary's autonomy and insulating judges from extraneous pressures that could otherwise compromise their impartiality,' the newspaper reported. Under the collegium system, the five most senior judges of the Supreme Court, including the chief justice, decide on the appointments and transfers of judges to the top court and the High Courts. Speaking at Seattle University in the United States on June 4, Kant acknowledged that the system has faced criticism, especially on the lack of publicly articulated criteria for selecting judges. However, he said that 'recent efforts by the Supreme Court signal a growing commitment to enhancing transparency and public confidence in it'. In 2022, the Supreme Court Collegium had published detailed documentation of its deliberations on selecting five judges. Since October 2017, the Collegium has also been publishing its resolution on the court's official website. Kant also said that the 'the judiciary's evolving relationship with its own independence, lies at the very heart of how India's vast, pluralistic democracy continues to function with remarkable cohesion'. He also said that some phases of institutional strain 'particularly during the Emergency' eventually 'gave way to renewed judicial consciousness'. In recent years, the Bharatiya Janata Party government at the Centre has been selectively appointing judges recommended for elevation to the bench by the Supreme Court collegium, which has allowed the Union government to exercise a veto over judicial appointments. The executive and the judiciary have been in a tug-of-war regarding appointments to higher judiciary in recent years. Former Law Minister Kiren Rijiju and Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar have repeatedly criticised the collegium system of appointing judges, contending that it is opaque. In 2014, the BJP-led government had introduced the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act with the objective of making appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts 'more broad-based, transparent, accountable and bringing objectivity in the system'. The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act had proposed to make judicial appointments through a body consisting of the chief justice, two senior Supreme Court judges, the Union law minister and two other eminent persons nominated by the chief justice, the prime minister and the Leader of the Opposition. In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the Act, ruling that it was unconstitutional.
Time of India
04-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Collegium system reforms can't be at cost of judicial independence: CJI
Amid a clamour for legislative revamp of the judges-selecting-judges system, fuelled by Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar's statements, CJI B R Gavai has said no reform in the collegium system could be at the "cost of judicial independence" and that judiciary should retain its primacy in appointments to Supreme Court and high courts. 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."
