Govt. defends move against Subramanium after CJI rap

July 03, 2014 03:21 am | Updated December 04, 2021 11:37 pm IST - NEW DELHI:

The government has acted within the scope of the law while segregating Gopal Subramanium’s name from a list of four that a Supreme Court collegium had recommended for appointment as judges of the apex court, a highly placed government source has told “The Hindu”. File photo

The government has acted within the scope of the law while segregating Gopal Subramanium’s name from a list of four that a Supreme Court collegium had recommended for appointment as judges of the apex court, a highly placed government source has told “The Hindu”. File photo

The government has acted within the scope of the law while segregating Gopal Subramanium’s name from a list of four that a Supreme Court collegium had recommended for appointment as judges of the apex court, a highly placed government source told The Hindu on Wednesday.

The government had approved three names, but communicated its objection on Mr. Subramanium to the Supreme Court, after splitting the file sent by the collegium. A day after Chief Justice of India R.M. Lodha castigated the government for this action, calling it “casual” and “unilateral,” a Union Minister said that the scope for segregation was “inherent” in the 1993 Supreme Court judgment that established the mechanism of a collegium of seniormost apex court judges selecting judges.

“The 1993 judgment allows the government to return to the SC any particular name recommended by it. Consequential upon this inherent right of the government was the segregation of the file into two — the first one with three names that the government had no objections to, and the second one with one name that was considered unsuitable for reasons I do not want to elaborate — which were sent to the President of India. The President approved the government action and one name was returned to the SC,” the source said. The source said the court could have insisted on the name had it wanted to, and as per the existing law, in that case the government would have had to accept it.

On the question of acting unilaterally while segregating and returning Mr. Subramanium’s name, the source said prior consultation with the judiciary “could have frustrated the process.”

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.