The article “A Trojan horse at the judiciary’s door” (June 14) cites various instances of the executive encroaching into the judicial sphere. The government’s proposal to set up a Judicial Appointments Commission is another instance of the government’s bid to influence judicial appointments. It will erode people’s faith in the judiciary. The government should not interfere with the sacred institution of justice.
Although the present system of selection by the collegium does not have the sanction of the Constitution, its track record is very good. People have more confidence in the judiciary than in the administration and politicians. The present system should continue, subject to minor changes that may be called for.
What we need is not an expanded collegium, but transparency. Appointments should be based on objective inputs, including reports from the CVC and the Lokpal-to-be.
Chinmay Anand Jain,
It is common knowledge that the attitude of the judiciary was regressive, especially in the early years of independence. The executive action is to be viewed in this background. With its formalities and oversized concern for puerile technicalities, time-consuming processes, and corruption in its own ranks, the judiciary has stopped rendering timely justice. If you approach the court over a property dispute, you will not get justice in your lifetime. What a quasi-judicial authority decides in a matter of days takes months and years in a court of law.
Anil Divan quotes the legendary V.R. Krishna Iyer. But Justice Iyer has criticised the collegium system in no uncertain terms. A Judicial Appointments Commission with wide participation is the need of the hour. Justice is too serious a matter to be left to the legal fraternity alone.
The UPA government’s attacks on constitutional offices cannot be compared with Indira Gandhi’s act of superseding some senior judges who decided against the government. Indira Gandhi was frustrated by the leaders of the Syndicate led by Morarji Desai while initiating progressive measures like nationalisation of banks and abolition of privy purses. When her government wanted to make progressive laws, the judiciary started frustrating it. Superseding judges is not illegal; it is the prerogative of the executive. It should not be forgotten that the single measure of nationalising banks led to enormous growth.
On appointment of judges, India should follow the system practised in mature democracies. In all democracies, the political class has a voice in judicial appointments.
Baikadi Suryanarayana Rao,
Keywords: Indian judiciary