The Supreme Court on Thursday contested the government’s claims about the professional track record of a former apex court judge who it cited as an example of bad appointments made by the collegium.
A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Justice J.S. Khehar, hearing petitions challenging the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) law, chose to meet take the government head-on by producing internal records to counter its claim.
The indication from the Bench was that fair criticism of the collegium system could be tolerated, but not personal attack on a former judge.
Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi, while handing over a sealed cover with a list of “bad appointments” made by the collegium during a hearing on June 10, had delved into this particular judge’s professional graph. Mr. Rohatgi submitted that the judge was elevated to the Supreme Court despite the number of his judgments in various High Courts not crossing the three-figure mark. The A-G said the judge had passed only seven judgments in the Supreme Court, two of which were concurring judgments, each a few paragraphs long. However, the Bench caught Mr. Rohatgi off-guard when it said they had checked officials records and found that the government was wrong about him. “In fact, we asked the Registrar General to collect data. The number of judgments delivered by the particular judge is well beyond three-figure.”
The judges on the Bench even handed the A-G a file they brought along to the courtroom. “This can’t be,” said Mr. Rohatgi. “What I meant was he did not author the judgments. He may have been part of the Bench delivering the judgments.” He promised to compare the date on the file with his own records.
Senior advocate Fali Nariman argued that NJAC takes away a “vital” part of judicial independence — the authority to insist — in the appointment process. The senior lawyer also objected to the Centre’s submission that NJAC was introduced in accordance with the wishes of the people.
