The Centre’s insistence that a larger Bench of nine to 11 judges should hear the petitions challenging the constitutionality of the new National Judicial Appointments Commission law replacing the Supreme Court Collegium came under flak on Friday.
In the last session of the marathon hearings before a five-judge Bench headed by Justice J.S. Khehar, senior advocates like Fali Nariman, who represents the lead petition in the batch challenging the new law and the 99th Constitution Amendment, said the Centre’s persistent demand would hold up court proceedings for no reason.
Mr. Nariman said the Centre’s plea for a larger Bench to hear the petitions came too late, and even after the petitioners had concluded their arguments.
If the Centre wanted to press for a larger Bench, it should have done so on the very first day Justice Khehar’s Bench took up the case.
On Thursday, Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi had countered that the Centre was entitled to seek a reference to a nine or 11-judge Constitution Bench. It said the primary point for seeking reference was to have the Supreme Court reconsider the 1993 judgment in the Second Judges case delivered by a Bench of nine judges. The 1993 judgment had introduced the collegium system of judicial appointments.
The Bench had at this point asked the Centre as to why it wanted the 1993 Second Judges case reconsidered when it had already claimed that the NJAC would wipe away the previous collegium system and usher in a new third chapter of judicial appointments system.
“The Centre’s stand is that the Second Judges case is gone after Article 124A (brought by 99th Constitutional amendment). But they ask for its reconsideration by larger Bench which is the dichotomy.”
