Monthly Archives: October 2015

Collegium system is Gymkhana Club: Answer Feed 4 NJAC Tonight Times Now TV debate -24 Oct 2015

I am hurt and mentally molested by the way 867 judges are day in and out gang raping the blindfolded justice God

I, THE Mother Justice God, being Schematically RAPED by The Collegium System in the name of INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY , JUSTICE Et al .                                 Since its conception I.E., 22 years, the ones who should have been languishing in JAILS for Criminal Contempt of Court,  four Chief Justice of India, more than Dozen High Court Chief Justices and 120 High Court Judges are appointed; of whom majority have RAPED me DAY & NIGHT in the name of JUSTICE.                                  I, The Mother Justice God Screamed Loud, and Louder  from Rape room / courts strrets to News / TV Channels to Supreme Court of India many a times!         The Last occasion through Indian Parliament!    But RAPISTS SILENCED my SCREAM!                                                                                                      I , Narendra Modi the PM of India, Arun Jaitley, other Ministers; the Elected Representatives who HAVE ASSURED FREE & FAIR JUSTICE  TO ALL INDIANS , the  1.35 Crore CITIZENS & THE RIGHT THINKING PERSONS are hurt and mentally molested by the way 867 EMPLOYEE-cum-Judges are day in and out gang raping the blind folded Justice God by GIVING AWAY CORRUPT JUSTICE for FAVOR or otherwise / SEX.                                         The rape of the Mother Justice God in SCI, HCs, LCs can not be AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED by any Right Thinking Person.

1. Whether CJI H.L. Dattu is senior to T.S.Thakur or vice versa?

Justice.H.L.Dattu  eureka-Naked-Running

2. When Thahur was Karnataka High Court Judge ; what was  H.L. Dattu doing?

CJI in waiting

T.S.Thakur – CJI in waiting

3. Whom amongst two, SCI Collegium ought to have chosen / recommended for being CJI in 2014, a successor to R.M. Lodha ?

4th Monkey
..THIS IS DRAFT..RIGHT ANSWERS WILL BE REWARDED…Yet…..MANY ….MORE QUESTIONS TO FOLLOW……
CJI H.L. Dattu & Gang of Criminal Contemners of '120 SCI & HC EMPLOYEE-CUM-JUDGES': “The Judges With Plots” DNA News. 22nd Nov,2011 Full Page Article

CJI H.L. Dattu & Gang of Criminal Contemners of ‘120 SCI & HC EMPLOYEE-CUM-JUDGES’: “The Judges With Plots” DNA News. 22nd Nov,2011 Full Page Article

CJI H.L. Dattu & Gang of Criminal Contemners of ‘120 SCI & HC EMPLOYEE-CUM-JUDGES': “Plot Thickens My Lord” DNA News. 23nd Nov,2011 Full Page Article

CJI H.L. Dattu & Gang of Criminal Contemners of ‘120 SCI & HC EMPLOYEE-CUM-JUDGES’: “Plot Thickens My Lord” DNA News. 23nd Nov,2011 Full Page Article

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

PM Modi Calls Foreign Investments; While Corrupt Judicial System SCARES

PM Modi’s successful visit to USA

The Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi, today chaired a roundtable meeting with top American CEOs from the media and entertainment sector.

The CEOs present included Rupert Murdoch, Executive Chairman, News Corp and 21stCentury Fox; James Murdoch, CEO, 21st Century Fox; Robert Thompson, CEO, News Corp; Uday Shankar, CEO, Star India; David Zaslav, President and CEO, Discovery Communications; Michael Lynton, CEO, Sony Entertainment; Michael Roth, CEO, Interpublic Group of Companies; Shane Smith, CEO, Vice Media; Martin Sorrell, CEO, WPP; Jeff Bewkes, CEO, Time Warner; Nancy Dubuc, CEO, A&E Networks, Anthony Pratt, Chairman, Visy Industries; William Duhamel, Route One Investment Company; and Jeff Ubben, CEO, ValueAct Capital.

PM Modi Calls Foreign Investments; While Corrupt Judicial System SCARES

PM Modi Calls Foreign Investments; While Corrupt Judicial System SCARES

http://www.narendramodi.in/pm-modi-s-successful-visit-to-usa-363502

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

NJAC debate: Collegium system was akin to a gymkhana club, says Arun Jaitley – Oct 23, 2015

New Delhi: A debate on the now-struck down National Judicial Appointments Commission, on Friday, saw participants sharply divided on the collegium system of choosing judges with events its supporters admitting that it has some faults and needed reform.

The participants — Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, who had sharply criticised the recent Supreme Court judgement, former CJI RM Lodha and jurists Soli Sorabjee and Rajeev Dhawan — felt there was need to correct the flaws in the system of judges appointing judges.

http://www.timesnow.tv/videoshow/4482065.cms

The “National Debate” was organised by Times Now news channel in the wake of the Supreme Court last week striking down as unconstitutional the NJAC Act passed by Parliament. It also witnessed repeated sparring between Jaitley and Dhawan.

Justice Lodha conceded that the collegium system of appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts was “opaque and secretive” and said the appointments and the procedure adopted can be put in the public domain or provided under RTI to bring in transparency.

“True, the (collegium) system is opaque and secretive. There are faults… The three faults are lack of transparency, lack of an expert body like a standing committee, to help the collegium and the executive’s indifferent role in the participatory process,” Justice Lodha.

He said that while he respects the executive, he was of the view the judiciary “has to be insulated” from political interference or pressure, and added that interference by executive has to be “nominal”.

Justice Lodha said though the NJAC Act has been set aside, it was still open for the executive and the legislature to devise an alternate method of appointing judges.

Opposing the collegium, Jaitley said it was full of flaws and while the nation needed an independent judiciary, its credibility was more important.

“To be independent is important. To be credible is more important. We all know there was a CBI Director who was independent but not credible,” he said.

Jaitley, himself a noted lawyer, questioned the “exclusivity” enjoyed by the judges who appoint judges without any interference by the executive, saying the collegium system was akin to the Gymkhana Club here where members appoint the future members. He also said that the executive always participated in the process, but its “comments were never taken seriously”.

“It (collegium) is a de-facto system where executive has to follow what the judiciary says. It is a clerical role that the executive has,” the minister said adding that there should be a system of checks and balances.

The minister contended by its judgement the apex court has re-written the constitution as it does “extreme damage” to sovereignty of the Parliament.

Backing the verdict, Dhawan said it does not affect Parliament’s sovereignty as it does not have sovereignty but is supreme in its sphere.

Sorabjee, a former Attorney General, supported the view of Jaitley and said that judges should have an important role in the appointment process “but not an exclusive role”.

“Why do you want to arrogate the power (to appoint judges) to judges only?” Sorabjee said.

He said that Justice Kurien Joseph, who was part of the five judge-bench, which delivered the NJAC verdict, had “castigated” the collegium system by saying that various deserving persons were ignored while several undeserving persons were included.

Sorabjee said that instead of striking down of the NJAC Act, the apex court could have “read into it” that eminent persons, who would be part of the NJAC, should be those who belong to the field of law.

On the objection to the inclusion of the Law Minister in the six-member commission, he said the minister “was not a pariah”.

Dhawan, who had appeared in the apex court during the NJAC hearings, countered the views of Jaitley and Sorabjee and said the problem with the NJAC was that it had some “design faults”, one of them being that it consisted of six members.

Another “fault” that he felt was that the two eminent persons or the law minister and one of the eminent persons could stall the appointment of a judge, apart from also impacting upon the primacy of the judiciary and the Chief Justice of India in appointing judges.

This view also received support of Justice Lodha who also said the NJAC in its current format could stall appointment of an independent judge.

Another threat to independence of judiciary that was feared by Justice Lodha, with which the other three agreed, was the issue of post-retirement jobs that judges get.

“Pre-retirement judgements are influenced by post-retirement benefits,” he said and suggested a method to counter it.

He said that three months prior to retirement, judges can be given the option of choosing between receiving pension or a full salary-job. If they opt for the former, then they would be disqualified from being considered for post-retirement work, he added.

However, if they opt for full salary, then their names would be made part of a panel and when a statutory vacancy comes up, which requires a judge of a high court or the apex court, then someone from these judges can be selected by the executive in consultation with the Chief Justice of India.

On Jaitley’s point that organisations like Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), Election Commission of India (ECI), and Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) were functioning well enough despite appointments there being made by the government, Justice Lodha and Dhawan said judiciary’s role was much different from that of these statutory bodies.

They said that the judiciary was the institution which was called upon to decide matters like coal block allocation, 2G spectrum allocation, life and liberty issues as well as the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Representation of the People Act and it cannot be compared to other statutory institutions.

“We need a strong and independent judiciary,” they said.

PTI

……………….

http://www.firstpost.com/india/njac-debate-collegium-system-was-akin-to-a-gymkhana-club-says-arun-jaitley-2480510.html

http://barandbench.com/the-nation-wants-to-know-collegium-a-gymkhana-club-alleges-arun-jaitley/

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Rend The Veil Of Secrecy-in Judges’ Appointment, Judgments, Elevation etc.,  23 October 2015

There’s an immediate need for an all-India judicial service

Nowhere in the world does the judiciary appoint its own, except in India. Save for the higher judiciary, every public officer in India undergoes a screening test. The collegium system has come in for a lot of criticism on the grounds that it lacks objectivity and impartiality. As a solution, the executive sought to bring in the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), which the Supreme Court has struck down.However, the cure doesn’t lie in restoring the balance in favour of the executive, but in putting in place a system that is objective and transparent. Thus, the argument for an all-India judicial service (AIJS) assumes significance. This old demand has always been shelved on account of vested interests masquerading as judicial independence. We can adopt the French model, where the judiciary is manned by a career judicial service. France’s experience is quite satisfactory compared to the UK, where judges are chosen from the legal profession, or the US, where judges needn’t necessarily come from a legal background. The process of selecting a good judge can’t be left to the wisdom of a few, however sagacious — be it a collegium or an NJAC.


This is all the more relevant in a complex and diverse country like India. A body like the UPSC needs to be established to conduct an examination for the recruitment of members to the AIJS. AIJS officers could start their careers as additional district judges and eventually rise up to become high court and SC judges. The AIJS would be able to attract the best talent. As against nebulous accountability and lack of transparency in the functioning of the judiciary, the AIJS can be governed by a well-laid system of discipline and service accountability like the existing all-India services. While the political executive and bureaucracy are subjected to various checks, the higher judiciary seems free from it. Theoretically, the judiciary’s acts can also be investigated, but it rarely happens. Disciplinary and service matters of the AIJS could be managed by a separate body. The executive should have no control over such matters. For the ostensible reason of independence, the judiciary has justified the collegium system of appointments, while in reality, it was perhaps the desire to not let go of privilege and discretion. Times have changed. People are more aware now and demand more transparency. All organs of state, except the judiciary, have responded to that demand. Only an AIJS will make the judiciary more accountable and professional. Most HCs and state governments have raised objections to an AIJS. Why would they agree when they would no longer be in a position to push in their candidates? Prior to the collegium, politicians could quietly sneak in their candidates. After the collegium system was introduced, the higher judiciary became party to that. An important objection to the AIJS by the states and the judiciary is local language requirements. This is a feeble argument. When IAS and IPS officers can be allotted state cadres and adjust to local requirements, why can’t AIJS officers? The judiciary has always closed its doors to public scrutiny. It has created a veil of secrecy. Every organ of state in a democracy needs to be accountable to the public. People need to know how judges are appointed, what criteria they have been evaluated on. Many judges appointed by the collegium or by political intervention may have been brilliant, yet their recruitment process is questionable. Such judges would have no moral right to question the transparency and integrity of the executive or even the private sector. The list of HC and SC judges of the last couple of decades indicates that a minuscule number of women, minorities and the downtrodden have been appointed to the higher judiciary. Does this reflect a bias? People have a right to know. The higher judiciary should reflect social reality and the country’s diversity. It can only happen if a fair and impartial system of recruitment is put in place. Neither the judiciary nor the executive needs to have a say. An AIJS is not only a sine qua non for good governance in the judiciary but also an essential prerequisite for India to become a mature democracy.

The writer is a former IAS officer

– See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/rend-the-veil-of-secrecy/#sthash.AEDH3Rt7.dpuf

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

PROBLEM:- While Corrupt Judicial System SCARES-PM Modi Calls Foreign Investments. JAIL CRIMINAL CONTEMNERS of more than 27 Court Judgments

SAVE INDIA -SHARE IT – ABORT ANARCHY BY CORRUPT JUDGES
… RESULT- Status Quo Ante . .SOLUTION:-Judges Appointment A Way Forward- PROSECUTE & JAIL CRIMINAL CONTEMNERS of more than 27 Court Judgments. . EMPLOYEE CUM CJIs, SCI Judges & 867 Judges & Lokayuktas . .Indian Corrupt Judicial System since 1993 Collegium system is Headed by Four CJIs Venkatachaliaha, S.Rajendra Babu , H.L.Dattu, Next CJIs T.S. Thakur,J.S.Khehar, Gopal Gowda, WB CJ ,
EPICENTRE:- KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
EVEDENCES:- OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT ADMITTED BY 867 EMPLOYEES-CUM-JUDGES IN ON-GOING CASES WP.[PIL] 40994/2002, CCC.87/2004, WP 7105/2007 ETC.,

CJI H.L. Dattu & Gang of  Criminal Contemners of '120 SCI & HC EMPLOYEE-CUM-JUDGES': “The Judges With Plots” DNA News. 22nd Nov,2011 Full Page Article

CJI H.L. Dattu & Gang of Criminal Contemners of ‘120 SCI & HC EMPLOYEE-CUM-JUDGES’: “The Judges With Plots” DNA News. 22nd Nov,2011 Full Page Article

“The Indian judiciary has always closed its doors to public scrutiny. It has created a veil of secrecy. Every organ of state in a democracy needs to be accountable to the public. People need to know how judges are appointed, what criteria they have been evaluated on. Many judges appointed by the collegium or by political intervention may have been brilliant, yet their recruitment process is questionable. Such judges would have no moral right to question the transparency and integrity of the executive or even the private sector. The list of HC and SC judges of the last couple of decades indicates that a minuscule number of women, minorities and the downtrodden have been appointed to the higher judiciary. Does this reflect a bias? People have a right to know. The higher judiciary should reflect social reality and the country’s diversity. It can only happen if a fair and impartial system of recruitment is put in place. Neither the judiciary nor the executive needs to have a say. An AIJS is not only a sine qua non for good governance in the judiciary but also an essential prerequisite for India to become a mature democracy. –

CJI H.L. Dattu & Gang of Criminal Contemners of ‘120 SCI & HC EMPLOYEE-CUM-JUDGES': “Plot Thickens My Lord” DNA News. 23nd Nov,2011 Full Page  Article

CJI H.L. Dattu & Gang of Criminal Contemners of ‘120 SCI & HC EMPLOYEE-CUM-JUDGES’: “Plot Thickens My Lord” DNA News. 23nd Nov,2011 Full Page Article


http://indiancorruptjudges.com/
http://indiancorruptjudges.com/Plot4Plot/A110.htm#resjudges
http://indiancorruptjudges.com/Plot4Plot/A110.htm
http://indiancorruptjudges.com/Plot4Plot/B102.htm
Corrupt Judges Message to All & Sundry = http://indiancorruptjudges.com/Plot4Plot/076_03.htm
https://jailcorrupt867judges.wordpress.com/
https://jailcorrupt867judges.wordpress.com/8454-crores-rs-scam/

http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/rend-the-veil-of-secrecy/



In National Interest this is Posted / Messaged to / at following:-
https://www.facebook.com/PresidentMukherjee?fref=ts

https://www.facebook.com/presidentofindiarb?fref=ts

https://www.facebook.com/pmnarendraM0DI?fref=ts

https://www.facebook.com/NAMOBestPrimiMinisiterOfINDIA?fref=ts

https://www.facebook.com/supremecourtindia?fref=ts

https://www.facebook.com/groups/118130894891657/
https://www.facebook.com/scadva?fref=ts
https://www.facebook.com/groups/717434738366882/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/214376232009858/

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

NJAC OR COLLEGIUM… THE NEED OF AN IDEAL SYSTEM FOR APPOINTMENTS TO THE HIGHER JUDICIARY- 18 Oct 2015

The much  awaited judgment in the NJAC case [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13 OF 2015 Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record -Association and another v. Union of India] has been pronounced by the 5 judges bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court . The court has struck down The Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014, declaring them to be unconstitutional and void with a majority of 4:1. The court has also rejected the respondent’s plea for reference to a larger bench for the reconsideration of the Second and Third Judge’s cases [(1993) 4 SCC 441, and (1998) 7 SCC 739, respectively]. The collegium system for appointment and transfer of judges has been restored.  The court has further listed the case on November 3, 2015 for considering opinions regarding the improvement in the collegium system.  Though I am very humble as compared to the legal luminaries involved in this case but being the part of the legal fraternity of the world’s largest democracy, I think it is my right as well as duty to express myself regarding this major issue in hand.

Let me begin from the very beginning, the first judge’s case (S.P.Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149) gave the primacy to the executive in appointments to the higher judiciary, declaring that the advice of the CJI’s recommendation on judicial appointments and transfers can be refused for “cogent reasons.”  The results were not good enough to suggest that we should have an executive dominant system of appointments.

In 1991 the question of judicial appointments came for consideration before the SC in Subhash Sharma v. Union of India (1991 Supp (1) SCC 574), the 3 judges bench opined that the majority view, in the First Judges case, should be considered by a larger bench. Mostly this case is missed out or only noted as a judgment referring the matter to a larger bench but in this case a very significant observation was made-

We are aware of the position. The need to set up the National Judicial Commission through a Constitutional Amendment is in contemplation. In the event of the amendment being carried and a National Judicial Commission being set up the characters of the ratio in S.P. Gupta’s case on the status of the Chief Justice of India may not be necessary to be examined. In view of the fact that by the amendment of the Chief Justice of India would become the Chairman of the Commission. In case the Commission is not appointed, the two questions indicated above which are vital, had to be decided by a larger Bench“.

Thus the court in that judgment itself affirmed the idea of a judicial commission for the appointment of judges.

In 1993 the 9 judges bench considered the questions referred to it in the second judge’s case (Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India AIR 1994 SC 268). The majority verdict gave back CJI’s power over judicial appointments and transfers. It says the CJI only need to consult two senior-most judges. Court held that the role of the CJI is primal in nature because this being a topic within the judicial family, the Executive cannot have an equal say in the matter, the verdict reasoned. However, confusion prevails as the CJIs start taking unilateral decisions without consulting two colleagues. The President is reduced to only an approver.

To clarify the position the then President K.R. Narayanan  sought a reference from the SC in the third judge’s case(Special Reference No.1 of 1998 AIR 1999 SC 1), the Supreme Court laid down that the CJI should consult with a plurality of four senior-most Supreme Court judges to form his opinion on judicial appointments and transfers. The crux of the second and third judges case is that the Judiciary should have primacy.

In 2000 the Venkatachaliah Commission was set up by NDA government to review the working of the constitution. In its report the commission recommended the formulation of a judicial commission comprising of:

(1) The Chief Justice of India:

Chairman

(2) Two senior most judges of the

Supreme Court: Member

(3) The Union Minister for Law and

Justice: Member

(4) One eminent person nominated by the President after consulting the

Chief Justice of India: Member

This report was shortly followed by The Constitution (Ninety Eighth Amendment) Bill, 2003 introduced by the NDA government which aimed at establishing a National Judicial Commission according to the suggestions of this commission but before this bill could be passed the Lok Sabha dissolved.

In 2013 the UPA government came up with The Constitution (120th Amendment) Bill, 2013 which provided for a six member Judicial Appointments Commission consisting of three judicial and three non-judicial members, thus giving equal say to both and primacy to none. I remember that both, the Law Minister Mr. Sibal (who introduced the bill) and the Leader of Opposition Mr. Jaitley were lauding the Venkatachaliah Commission’s report despite the fact that the composition of JAC was wayward from the report that suggested judicial primacy in the judicial commission. However this bill also couldn’t get passed and the Lok Sabha dissolved.

In 2014 the NDA government introduced The Constitutional (121st Amendment) Bill, which was subsequently passed by both houses of the parliament, ratified by 16 state legislatures and  assented by the President; NJAC Act and the Constitutional Amendment Act came into force from 13 April 2015. By this NJAC case The Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 have been declared null & void by the court which is the issue in hand.

Similar to JAC it also provided for a six member commission with three judicial and three non-judicial members. The twist however was that any two members may veto appointment of any judge, which tends to give an upper hand to the executive at times as any two non-judicial members can easily veto the choice of the judicial members. Not going into deep legalities of the 1030 page judgment, on the basis of the conclusions given by Hon’ble judges in their respective judgments it can be said that the 2014 amendment is being struck down as it is against the principles of ‘separation of powers’ and ‘independence of judiciary’ and thus violative of the basic structure of the constitution to which I cannot agree more.

I started the post with the heading, ideal system but haven’t suggested it so far, actually I have. According to me the most apt and suitable system would be a judicial commission as recommended by the Venkatachaliah Commission. A five member body of three judicial and two non-judicial members consisting of the Hon’ble CJI and two senior most judges of the apex court, the Minister of Law & Justice and an eminent person. I would suggest only two changes to the recommendations of the Venkatachaliah Commission, first, that the eminent person should be replaced with eminent jurist and second, that he must be appointed on the recommendation of CJI, Prime Minister and Leader of Opposition, this would ensure fairness and keep out any arbitrariness.

The reason behind my opinion is that it is in consensus with the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The idea of a judicial commission has been affirmed in the Subhash Sharma’s case itself and in the instant judgment also, the idea of a judicial commission has not been entirely denied but the idea of NJAC with arbitrary composition and powers has been struck down. The greater number of judicial members in the commission ensures judicial primacy in appointments and transfers thus following the judgment in second and third judges case. The presence of the Law Minister would provide the executive representation in the appointments which is being much sought for.

©Prakhar Saran

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Illogical to eliminate govt from judges’ selection: Justice Chelameswar- 17 Oct 2015

“The fiasco created in Dinakaran case and Shanti Bhushan case would justify the participation of the members of the civil society in the process to eliminate from the selection process the maladies involved in the process. The abovementioned two are not the only cases where the system failed,” he said.

……….“All power could be misused including judicial power” Justice J Chelameswar said questioning Supreme Court’s reluctance to share the power to appoint judges to the higher judiciary with the legislature and executive.

The lone dissenting judge in the five-judge Constitutional bench, Justice Chelameswar, opined that, “Proceedings of the collegium were absolutely opaque and inaccessible both to public and history, barring occasional leaks”.

“To believe that members of the judiciary alone could bring valuable inputs to the appointment process requires great conceit and disrespect for the civil society,” he said adding that it was time for the judiciary to become more transparent in its appointment process.

Upholding the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, Justice Chelameswar said the Constitution provides “extraordinary safeguards and privileges” for judges to “insulate” them political interference.

A judge’s appointment and continuance in office is not subject to any election process and the termination of judicial appointment during subsistence of the tenure is made virtually impossible, Justice Chelameswar said.

“In this context, to hold that it should be totally excluded from the process of appointing judges would be wholly illogical and inconsistent with the foundations of the theory of democracy and a doctrinal heresy,” he said in his separate judgement.

“The Constitution therefore provides extraordinary safeguards and privileges for Judges of Constitutional courts to insulate them substantially from the possibility of interference by the political-executive as well as elected majorities of the people’s representatives,” he added.

He concurred with Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi’s argument that the basic feature of the Constitution is not primacy of the opinion of the CJI but lies in “non investiture” of absolute power in the President to choose and appoint judges.

Backing the NJAC Act, Justice Chelameswar said, “The remedy is not to deny grant of power but to structure it so as to eliminate the potential for abuse”.

He further reasoned that the power to nominate two eminent persons – as part of the NJAC – is conferred upon three high constitutional functionaries – the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the CJI, which brought in an element of checks and balances.

He disputed the accountability of the collegiums system saying that in the last 20 years since its advent, number of recommendations made by the collegia of High Courts were rejected by the collegium of the Supreme Court.

There were cases where the apex court collegium “retraced its steps” after rejecting recommendations of a particular name suggested by the High Court collegium giving scope for a great deal of “speculation”.

Justice Chelameswar also spoke of the “fiasco” created by collegium in appointment of Justice PD Dinakaran in SC and appointment of a judge as a permanent judge of the Madras high court.

“The fiasco created in Dinakaran case and Shanti Bhushan case would justify the participation of the members of the civil society in the process to eliminate from the selection process the maladies involved in the process. The abovementioned two are not the only cases where the system failed,” he said.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/illogical-to-eliminate-govt-from-judges-selection-justice-chelameswar/story-QFkbCMax7321UrVmZzHPmM.html

“The (collegium) records are absolutely beyond the reach of any person including the judges of this Court who are not lucky enough to become the Chief Justice of India. Such a state of affairs does not either enhance the credibility of the institution or good for the people of this country,” he added.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized