 Online edition of India's National Newspaper Friday, Nov 21, 2008 ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| National |
|
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |
National
The judiciary’s recommendations are binding on the executive “President cannot make appointment unless it conforms to CJI’s opinion” New Delhi: An advocate has moved the Supreme Court for a declaration that the President is bound to issue warrants of appointments to the three judges, recommended by the collegium headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) K.G. Balakrishnan. In his writ petition, R. K. Kapoor said that as per the various apex court judgments the recommendations of the judiciary on appointment of judges were binding on the executive. If the executive sat on the matter or delayed the appointment, the apex court could issue appropriate directions for performance of those functions in the public interest. “If there is a deadlock between the judiciary and the executive on the issue of appointment of judges to the apex court, as a result of which the vacancies continue [and] arrears of cases go on piling up, the deadlock has to be broken by the judiciary itself by issuing appropriate directions.” ControversyThe petitioner said he was concerned at the controversy over the elevation of the Chief Justices of the Kerala, Madras and Patna High Courts, H.L. Dattu, A K Ganguli and R.M. Lodha, to the Supreme Court, with the government sending back the files to the CJI and the collegium reiterating its earlier recommendations. The petitioner cited the apex court ruling in the SC Advocates on Record Association vs. UOI case, in which a nine-member Constitution Bench accorded primacy to the collegium in judicial appointments saying “The opinion of the CJI, forwarded in the manner prescribed, shall be primal. No appointment can be made by the President under Articles 124(2) and 217(1) unless it is in conformity with the opinion of the CJI.” On the government claim that seniority of some High Court Chief Justices was overlooked, the petitioner quoted the Constitution Bench’s observation: “The appointment to the Supreme Court shall be by ‘selection on merit.’ Inter se seniority amongst judges in their respective High Courts has to be kept in view while considering the judges for elevation to the Supreme Court.” Mr. Kapoor said: “In view of the several judicial pronouncements, the Centre cannot withhold the files containing the collegium’s proposal on elevation of the three High Court Chief Justices.”
Printer friendly
page
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Ergo | Home |
Copyright © 2008, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|