Government misinterpret NJAC verdict, says Additional Solicitor General Vikas Singh
3 min read
Express News Service
NEW DELHI: With Kiren Rijiju’s letter to Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud looking for inclusion of presidency representatives within the choice making course of for appointment of judges to the upper judiciary drawing flak, the Union legislation minister defended his missive saying it was primarily based on the 2015’s bench verdict that struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
“This is precise follow-up action of the direction of Supreme Court Constitution Bench while striking down the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act. The SC Constitution Bench had directed to restructure the MoP of the collegium system,” Rijiju stated in a tweet.
I hope you honour Court’s route! This is exact follow-up motion of the route of Supreme Court Constitution Bench whereas putting down the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act. The SC Constitution Bench had directed to restructure the MoP of the collegium system. https://t.co/b1l0jVdCkJ
— Kiren Rijiju (@KirenRijiju) January 16, 2023
The five-judge bench in 2015 whereas declaring the NJAC Act as unconstitutional, had agreed to assessment the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) of the collegium system. Noting that the prevailing system of judicial appointment required reforms with reference to eligibility, transparency, Secretariat and criticism mechanism, the bench had directed the restructuring of the MoP. However, the MoP is but to be revamped.
Speaking to this newspaper, senior advocate and former Additional Solicitor General Vikas Singh stated, “The legislation minister has both not learn the judgment or not understood it. He can’t ask for the Centre to be included within the collegium as a result of collegium is already determined”.
“MoP comes into play after the collegium makes a advice and the modalities for making last suggestions. According to me, this letter by the federal government is clearly misconceived and reveals full lack of knowledge of the authorized place.” Both the AAP and the Congress criticised the letter, saying it’s extraordinarily harmful.
NEW DELHI: With Kiren Rijiju’s letter to Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud looking for inclusion of presidency representatives within the choice making course of for appointment of judges to the upper judiciary drawing flak, the Union legislation minister defended his missive saying it was primarily based on the 2015’s bench verdict that struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
“This is precise follow-up action of the direction of Supreme Court Constitution Bench while striking down the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act. The SC Constitution Bench had directed to restructure the MoP of the collegium system,” Rijiju stated in a tweet.
I hope you honour Court’s route! This is exact follow-up motion of the route of Supreme Court Constitution Bench whereas putting down the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act. The SC Constitution Bench had directed to restructure the MoP of the collegium system. https://t.co/b1l0jVdCkJ
— Kiren Rijiju (@KirenRijiju) January 16, 2023
The five-judge bench in 2015 whereas declaring the NJAC Act as unconstitutional, had agreed to assessment the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) of the collegium system. Noting that the prevailing system of judicial appointment required reforms with reference to eligibility, transparency, Secretariat and criticism mechanism, the bench had directed the restructuring of the MoP. However, the MoP is but to be revamped.
Speaking to this newspaper, senior advocate and former Additional Solicitor General Vikas Singh stated, “The legislation minister has both not learn the judgment or not understood it. He can’t ask for the Centre to be included within the collegium as a result of collegium is already determined”.
“MoP comes into play after the collegium makes a advice and the modalities for making last suggestions. According to me, this letter by the federal government is clearly misconceived and reveals full lack of knowledge of the authorized place.” Both the AAP and the Congress criticised the letter, saying it’s extraordinarily harmful.
