New Delhi. Being strong critics of the ‘Opaque’ Collegium or ‘Judges Appointing Judges’ System, the renowned Lawyers, Mr. F. S. Nariman and Mr. A. B. Divan argued before the honourable Apex Judicial authority of India- Supreme Court, against the recent developed scheme ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission’- NJAC.
The said Arguments were made before the honourable Apex Court on this Tuesday i.e. 29th April by the said renowned octogenarian lawyers.
It was contended before the honourable Court by Mr. Nariman, who is also seen as a challenger of the Constitutionality of supporting legislation i.e. National Judicial Appointment Commission, Act, that the makers of Constitution had stressed on appointment of High Judiciary such as honourable Supreme Court of India and High Courts of the States, from the control of Law makers and Law Executers of our Nation.
Mr. Nariman is appearing for the aforesaid two Supreme Court Advocates on record Association. He further said alleging the said NJAC Act is constitutionally invalid, that even the makers of our Law of Land i.e. Constitution of India had also never willing or intended to provide for, Judges appointment power for the higher and highest Judiciary, to the Executive organ of the nation. As per Mr. Nariman, there are two fold reasons as to invalidity of the legislation making provisions as to National Judicial Appointment Commission-NJAC, first being that the said enactment was provided by the Parliament of India which is inconsistent to the provisions of the Constitution of India and secondly there are provisions under the said NJAC Act which are attempting to encroach the independence of Judiciary resultantly violates the Basic structure of the Law of land.
His being past criticizing the collegium system as flawed, it was said by him that the said NJA Commission endangers the Judicial independence by reason of a new system which is allowing the executive to veto suggestions of the CJI (Chief Justice of India) and two senior-most Judges of the honourable Apex Court regarding the appointment of judiciary.
However, Mr. Divan as representing the BAI (Bar Association of India) argued with contradictory points that the petitioners seeking quashment of the National Judicial Appointment Commission and simultaneously arguing the failure of the collegium system.
By referring the infamous suppression of the Higher judiciary by the Executive organ while in the period of emergency, Mr. Divan said that as it is the being the tendency of the Law making organ and Executive organ to interfere with the Judiciary’s independence and it is thus the tradition and convention that the insulation of Judiciary is with the interference from the other two (Executive and Legislature) organs.
In other words Mr. Divan sought the consideration of existing and most prevailing tendencies, when the Court to decide on the issue of constitutionality of the law on National Judicial Appointment Commission.
by Faim Khalilkhan Pathan.
