Will the new National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) bill ensure greater transparency?

Will the new National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) bill provide more transparency?Will the new National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) bill provide more transparency?

Olav Albuquerque

The dead National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act of 2014, which was the result of the 99th constitutional amendment, could reappear in a revised version as many retired judges, aside from the Supreme Court Bar Association and other public intellectuals, oppose the judges have posed secretly appoint themselves. The Modi government has already insisted on having a say in court hearings. If Parliament passes a revised law specifying the appointment of judges, the Supreme Court’s ruling to repeal the NJAC will be overridden.

The Supreme Court repealed both the NJAC Act and the 99th constitutional amendment in 2015 on the grounds that they tampered with the basic structure of the constitution by interfering with judicial independence. The Minister for Union Law, Kiren Rijiju, openly declared in Parliament on December 8th that the selection of judges needed “further consultations”. He said this when responding to a debate on the 2021 Amendment Act for Supreme Court and Supreme Court Judges (salaries and terms of service), which Parliament passed unanimously. During the debate, many MPs called on the government to propose another bill to revive the defunct NJAC by abolishing the college system. Perhaps an All India Judicial Service is in preparation.

After Judge Kurien Joseph stepped down, he regretted being part of the bank that put down the 99th Amendment, the only dissenting being Judge Jasti Chelameshwar, whose son Jasti Naga Bhushan Chelameshwar of the YS Jaganmohan Reddy government in Andhra Pradesh this. was appointed additional Advocate General month. Former trade union law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, who resigned from the government in July, had openly stated that his ministry would not be a mere “post office” just to forward the names of suspected judges to the president.

True to Prasad’s words, the government blocked the elevation of then-chairman of the Uttarakhand Supreme Court, KM Joseph, to the Supreme Court until an outspoken Judge Jasti Chelameshwar upheld the college resolution proposed by Judge Joseph. That resolution stated: “He is in all respects more worthy and apt than other chief justices and high-ranking judges in high courts to be appointed judge of the Supreme Court of India.”

But leaving Judge Joseph aside, the issue of the secret appointment of judges is more controversial because Ranjan Gogoi’s autobiography, entitled “Justice for the Judge,” claims the CBI did not pursue a negative Intelligence Bureau (IB) report on the then Madras The Chairperson of the High Court, Vijaya Kapse Tahilramani.

Gogoi now faces the shame of 10 privilege violation requests because he was supposed to speak in an interview with NDTV on the 9th. I am a nominated member who is not ruled by a party leadership. So it doesn’t bind me when the bell rings so that the party members can come.

When asked about the appropriateness of accepting a Rajya Sabha nomination four months after the country’s highest judicial office was ousted, Gogoi reportedly shot back, “What is the magic of Rajya Sabha? I would have been better off in terms of pay and earnings if I had chaired a tribunal. ”These statements irritated MPs enough to file 10 privilege violation complaints against him.

To return to former Madras Chief Justice Vijaya Kapse Tahilramani when he was CJI, Ranjan Gogoi ordered the CBI to take action against this judge for disbanding a special bank for hearing idolatry cases allegedly under pressure from a minister of Tamil Nadu stood. She was charged with preferring certain attorneys other than buying two apartments in Semmencherry, Chennai for Rs 1.56 billion from six bank accounts linked to her name. Gogoi alleged the CBI had never pursued the matter despite a negative report from the IB against Tahilramani.

Both the Chennai and Mumbai Bar Associations came out strongly in support of Judge Tahilramani when she was transferred as chief judge from the prestigious Madras High Court to the tiny Meghalaya High Court. She decided to step down, which sparked the negative IB report against her.

But why choose this judge? Her seniors, such as Chief Justice JS Khehar, Dipak Misra, Ranjan Gogoi and Sharad Bobde, have also been embroiled in controversy proving that they are human after all. Chief Justice Ajit Shah pointed out to Karan Thapar, the 44th CJI JS Khehar, the inappropriateness of petitioning a letter from Dangwimsai Pul, widow of the Prime Minister of Arunachal Pradesh Kalikho Pul, to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court without their consent to convert.

Kalikho Pul committed suicide in 2016, alleging that he paid cash to then-Treasury Secretary Pranab Mukherjee, who later became president, and that agents allegedly sought bribes on behalf of some Supreme Court justices, including Judge Khehar. His successor, the 45th CJI Dipak Misra, was accused of bank manipulation by four of his fellow judges, who did not name him, at India’s very first press conference in 2018. Ranjan Gogoi, who was one of those four, made judicial history by becoming the first CJI to be charged with sexual harassment in post-independent India.

The four judges calling the press conference have done the nation a service because they could have quietly stepped back. They remained faithful to their consciences, which could explain why former CJI Sharad Bobde reportedly visited the home of RSS chief Keshav Baliram Hedgewar in Nagpur on August 31 to see it being restored. And later, the former CJI is said to have met RSS leader Suresh Bhaiyajji Joshi. He felt that as a former CJI there was nothing wrong with showing that he was a devout Hindu or showed his passion for the heavy motorcycles he rode. Every judge has a different conscience than his fellow judges. Because of this, we may need a new law to make the appointment of judges completely transparent.

Comments are closed.