According to me, the verdict is flawed. The verdict has ignored the unanimous view of Parliament and the will of more than half a dozen state egislatures; cumulatively they account for the whole country – Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi
New Delhi : A shocked Centre termed as ‘setback’ the apex court’s verdict quashing the 99th amendment enabling the National Judicial Appointments Council (NJAC). The govt, however, has not come out clearly about how it proposes to follow up the issue further.
Telecom Minister Ravishankar Prasad said, ‘while upholding dearly the independence of the judiciary we must say that parliamentary sovereignty has received a setback today’. Prasad went on to explain how the decision to constitute the NJAC was taken after country wide consultations at various fora and platforms for the last twenty years. In this regard, he mentioned the Administrative Reforms Commission, the report of the Law Commission, reports of at least three standing committees of Parliament. The minister also quoted late CJI Justice JS Verma and Justice Krishna Iyer on the issue.
‘As law minister who worked on this I myself sought the opinion of all 26 political parties. Though they differed in suggestion for the architecture of the Commission, all parties unanimously supported the need for a NJAC’, Prasad claimed. The centre has strongly refuted the SC Constitution Bench decision that formation of the NJAC would amount to interfering with the basic tenets of the constitution which guarantee independence of the judiciary. ‘The Law Minister was the only executive in the NJAC. As for the two eminent persons, the Chief Justice of India was to have the most important role in choosing these two. Therefore, there was no question of interfering at any level with their independence, argued Ravishankar Prasad.
‘The formation of the NJAC was an important part of the judicial reforms process and we believe that it would strengthen the judiciary’, Prasad added. The govt has yet to come out with its future strategy. Sources said the centre would rather wait for the November 3 hearing wherein the SC bench would like to discuss suggestions to improve the collegium system.
