New Delhi, Aug 14: The Asian Centre for Human Rights in a press release today called upon the Government of India to send the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-First Amendment) Bill, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill (NJACB), which were passed by the Lok Sabha today, to the Rajya Sabha’s Select Committee.
“The Bills are nothing but an attempt to wrest control over appointment and transfer of judges from the Supreme Court by the executive. The problems with the collegium system must be addressed by making it more transparent and accountable, and not by wresting the control for appointment and transfer of judges from the judiciary.” – stated Mr Suhas Chakma, Director of Asian Centre for Human Rights.
Asian Centre for Human Rights further stated even though the Bills are littered with “ability and merit” required of the judges, no criteria including educational qualification has been set for two “eminent persons” who shall be serving as members of the National Judicial Appointments Commission mandated to appoint and transfer judges as per the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-First Amendment) Bill, 2014. There is no procedural guarantee that in case any appointing committee member opposes appointment of any “eminent person”, the concerned person shall be barred. Though the Supreme Court quashed appointment of Mr P J Thomas as Chairman of the Central Vigilance Commission, subsequently Justice Cyriac Joseph and Mr Sarat Chandra Sinha were appointed as members of the NHRC despite then leaders of Opposition, Sushma Swaraj in the Lok Sabha and Arun Jaitley in the Rajya Sabha, recording their dissent against their appointments. Further, the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-First Amendment) Bill, 2014 creates conflict of interest for the Chief Justice of India who in his/her capacity as the ex-officio Chairman of the National Judicial Appointments Commission may also be required to adjudicate on the validity of the appointment of the “eminent persons” with whom he/she will be taking decisions on appointment and transfers of the judges.
“The intention of the Government of India is suspicious. While the National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2014 emphatically states that no person can be appointed if any two members of the Commission do not agree, no such procedure has been included in the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-First Amendment) Bill, 2014 for appointment of the members of the National Judicial Appointments Commission. This is a mockery.” – further stated Mr Chakma.
ACHR also stated “If certain Chief Justices had failed to stand up to pressure of then UPA Government, which itself was under pressure from the DMK, for the elevation of Justice S. Ashok Kumar, it is unlikely that in future, members of the National Judicial Appointments Commission shall be able to stand up to any government. Even under the collegium system many a judges were appointed because of the proximity to the Law Minister rather than merit. The history of Indian judges shows that Justice H R Khanna, the only judge who opposed the suspension of the right to habeas corpus during emergency in the ADM Jabalpur case, has been the exception.”
“In the final analysis, selection or rejection of a judge under the collegium system may not meet the litmus test of choosing the best judge because of “personal preferences” or “differences” of those who are selecting/appointing the judges but damage in such cases is limited to personal “preferences” or “differences”. However, when the Government through the Law Minister appoints or rejects judges because of political or ideological “preferences” or “differences”, the appointment and rejection of judges has the potential to impact the entire nation.” – warned ACHR. (SP News)
