Ex-SC choose Nariman slams Rijiju; says sitting on Collegium’s names ‘lethal’ for democracy

By PTI

MUMBAI: Former Supreme Court choose Rohinton Fali Nariman has slammed Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju for his “diatribe” towards the collegium system for the appointment of judges, and stated the federal government sitting on the names of judges really useful by the collegium was “deadly” for democracy.

Nariman additionally stated that if the final bastion of impartial judiciary falls, then the nation would enter the “abyss of a new dark age.”

What is the independence of the judiciary if impartial and fearless judges usually are not being appointed, he stated.

He was talking on Friday on the Mumbai University whereas delivering the seventh Chief Justice M C Chagla Memorial Lecture.

The former apex courtroom choose additionally known as for a particular five-judge bench to be fashioned and for it to move a judgment that when a reputation is distributed by the collegium to the federal government and if the latter has nothing to say inside a interval of 30 days, then it will likely be taken because it has nothing to say.

“This sitting on names is a very deadly thing against the democracy of this country. Because what you are merely doing is you are waiting for a particular collegium and hoping that the next collegium changes its mind. Appointment must be done within a reasonable time period,” Nariman stated.

“It is how a constitution works. If you don’t have fearless and independent judges say goodbye. There is nothing left. As a matter of fact, according to me if finally this last bastion falls or was to fall we would enter the abyss of a new dark age, in which R K Laxman’s Common Man will ask himself only one question: if the salt has lost its savour, wherewith will shall it be salted?…” he stated.

Nariman was a part of the Supreme Court collegium until he retired in August 2021.

Rijiju has again and again questioned the collegium system of appointment of judges, noting that it was “opaque and not transparent.”

Recently, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar stated that the placing down of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act by the Supreme Court was a extreme compromise of parliamentary sovereignty.

“We have heard a diatribe by the Union law minister of the day against this process (appointment of judges). Let me assure the law minister that there are two very basic constitutional fundamentals he must know,” Nariman stated.

ALSO READ | Government misinterpret NJAC verdict, says former ASG

“One fundamental is that, unlike the United States, a minimum of five unelected judges are trusted with the interpretation of the Constitution. So, this constitution bench is trusted to interpret the constitution and once they have done this it is your bounden duty as an authority to follow that judgment,” Nariman stated.

“You may criticise it, as a citizen, I may criticise it. No problem. But never forget you are an authority and as an authority, you are bound by the judgment of right or wrong,” he added.

On the problem of the fundamental doctrine construction, Nariman stated it was sought to be undone twice up to now over 40 years in the past and since then no one has stated a phrase towards it besides very lately. “So let us be clear that this is something that has come to stay and thank god it has come to stay,” he stated.

Nariman added that within the United States, judicial appointments don’t contain any decision-making course of from the judiciary in any respect, however India adopted a special method.

“Fortunately for us, what India did was initially till the 1990s, the President in consultation with judges that he thinks fit appoints judges in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. By and far what the Chief Justice of India said or recommended was followed,” he stated.

ALSO READ | Expression of views would not disentitle candidate from holding constitutional put up: SC Collegium

The retired choose additional stated that the constitutional precept right here was the independence of the judiciary and that was essential for democracy.

“What is the independence of the judiciary if not independent and fearless judges being appointed? Who would know better than the Chief Justice of India whether a judge should be appointed or should not?” Nariman stated.

It was later determined that other than the CJI, senior judges would even be consulted, Nariman stated, including finally, the judiciary took into its personal fingers the appointment course of.

INTERVIEW | If ‘basic structure doctrine’ goes, elementary rights will go: Justice Lokur

MUMBAI: Former Supreme Court choose Rohinton Fali Nariman has slammed Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju for his “diatribe” towards the collegium system for the appointment of judges, and stated the federal government sitting on the names of judges really useful by the collegium was “deadly” for democracy.

Nariman additionally stated that if the final bastion of impartial judiciary falls, then the nation would enter the “abyss of a new dark age.”

What is the independence of the judiciary if impartial and fearless judges usually are not being appointed, he stated.

He was talking on Friday on the Mumbai University whereas delivering the seventh Chief Justice M C Chagla Memorial Lecture.

The former apex courtroom choose additionally known as for a particular five-judge bench to be fashioned and for it to move a judgment that when a reputation is distributed by the collegium to the federal government and if the latter has nothing to say inside a interval of 30 days, then it will likely be taken because it has nothing to say.

“This sitting on names is a very deadly thing against the democracy of this country. Because what you are merely doing is you are waiting for a particular collegium and hoping that the next collegium changes its mind. Appointment must be done within a reasonable time period,” Nariman stated.

“It is how a constitution works. If you don’t have fearless and independent judges say goodbye. There is nothing left. As a matter of fact, according to me if finally this last bastion falls or was to fall we would enter the abyss of a new dark age, in which R K Laxman’s Common Man will ask himself only one question: if the salt has lost its savour, wherewith will shall it be salted?…” he stated.

Nariman was a part of the Supreme Court collegium until he retired in August 2021.

Rijiju has again and again questioned the collegium system of appointment of judges, noting that it was “opaque and not transparent.”

Recently, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar stated that the placing down of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act by the Supreme Court was a extreme compromise of parliamentary sovereignty.

“We have heard a diatribe by the Union law minister of the day against this process (appointment of judges). Let me assure the law minister that there are two very basic constitutional fundamentals he must know,” Nariman stated.

ALSO READ | Government misinterpret NJAC verdict, says former ASG

“One fundamental is that, unlike the United States, a minimum of five unelected judges are trusted with the interpretation of the Constitution. So, this constitution bench is trusted to interpret the constitution and once they have done this it is your bounden duty as an authority to follow that judgment,” Nariman stated.

“You may criticise it, as a citizen, I may criticise it. No problem. But never forget you are an authority and as an authority, you are bound by the judgment of right or wrong,” he added.

On the problem of the fundamental doctrine construction, Nariman stated it was sought to be undone twice up to now over 40 years in the past and since then no one has stated a phrase towards it besides very lately. “So let us be clear that this is something that has come to stay and thank god it has come to stay,” he stated.

Nariman added that within the United States, judicial appointments don’t contain any decision-making course of from the judiciary in any respect, however India adopted a special method.

“Fortunately for us, what India did was initially till the 1990s, the President in consultation with judges that he thinks fit appoints judges in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. By and far what the Chief Justice of India said or recommended was followed,” he stated.

ALSO READ | Expression of views would not disentitle candidate from holding constitutional put up: SC Collegium

The retired choose additional stated that the constitutional precept right here was the independence of the judiciary and that was essential for democracy.

“What is the independence of the judiciary if not independent and fearless judges being appointed? Who would know better than the Chief Justice of India whether a judge should be appointed or should not?” Nariman stated.

It was later determined that other than the CJI, senior judges would even be consulted, Nariman stated, including finally, the judiciary took into its personal fingers the appointment course of.

INTERVIEW | If ‘basic structure doctrine’ goes, elementary rights will go: Justice Lokur