The Law Minister’s statement that the judiciary should trust the Prime Minister in the appointment of judges because he has the mandate of the people is totally uncalled for (“Why don’t you trust the PM, Law Minister asks judiciary”, November 27). The independence of the judiciary is essential for a healthy democracy because experience has taught us that a popularly elected government tries to interfere with the working of the judiciary.
As the guardian of the Constitution, the Supreme Court should keep in check the power of a popularly elected government. An example is the Indira Gandhi government which also had a similar mandate and was popular. But we all know how time and again she tried to undermine the independence of the judiciary. The point is that in matters concerning the judiciary, its working cannot be linked to a popular mandate. If this were so then all the judges should be appointed by the executive without any provision of ‘consulting the Chief Justice’ in the appointment of judges.
Jatan Mudgal,
New Delhi
It is surprising to note the anguish of the Law Minister. While the Prime Minister says that the balance between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary is the backbone of the Constitution, the Law Minister feels it to be a case of mistrust.
Each pillar of democracy has its checks and balances. The Law Minister may feel that the Prime Minister can be trusted with the nuclear button, but that trust does not give the person occupying the post of Prime Minister blanket permission to interfere in the independence of other institutions. If, as he states, the polity of the country will look into this aspect and alter the fine balance then it will sound the death knell of our democracy.
When the sacrosanct Constitution makes a clear distinction between the roles of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, why should the Law Minister make statements that encroach upon the independent functioning of these pillars of democracy? Is it because the judiciary cannot be arm-twisted like the income tax and enforcement departments and the Central Bureau of Investigation to toe a certain line or is it a feeling of insecurity consequent to the accountability of the political class now being sought by the judiciary? The Constitution must be supreme and each pillar of democracy should have its own role to play in the functioning of our great nation.
Varghese George,
Secunderabad
It does not augur well for our democracy when the Law Minister says: “Why don’t you trust the Prime Minister?” Parliament and the judiciary are two pillars of the nation. It is not a question of trust or distrust. One institution should not claim supremacy over the other. Can the Law Minister guarantee that the Prime Minister or all Prime Ministers for that matter will safeguard the judiciary if a collegium is not formed? No one has the right to violate the Constitution in the name of trust.
R. Kanagasabai,
Puducherry
The public spat on the role of judiciary vis-à-vis the executive could have been avoided. An event organised to mark the adoption of the Constitution of India has eventually turned out to be a clash of egos. The difference of opinion on the subject dates back even to the days of the UPA when questions were raised about the court’s eagerness to decide on spectrum price when they did not have the expertise on the subject and also the court forming its own panel of judges to unearth black money, a role to be performed solely by the executive legislature. However, political parties support or oppose judicial over-reach as it suits them. They do not have a clearly defined approach to the vexatious issue and have used it to settle political scores against one another as convenient. Hence their outbursts lack credibility. The roles played by both are so complex that it is very difficult to draw a line to ensure that one does trespass into the other’s territory.
As far as excluding the Law Minister from the National Judicial Appointments Commission, it is not a rocket science to make out that the government would always prefer a person amenable to them rather than an impartial one. For instance, on the appointment of the President and Governors after the Lok Sabha election, the present ruling dispensation has ensured that persons conducive to its line of thinking are in office. Such appointments to gubernatorial posts should have been done by consensus ethically. At least the views of the State should have been invited on the appointment of Governors. The judiciary seems to be in a state of overreach not because it has wanted to but because of a lack of other options at its disposal. A public interest litigation questioning the motives of a government on any given issue cannot be ignored, giving the benefit of the doubt to the government under unfettered executive powers. Courts have the right to investigate, akin to raising a ‘corporate veil’ if they form a considered opinion that the move is not in the interest of the common man. The beauty of democracy hinges on discussion, debate, contesting and resolving conflicting views. It will be a sad day for democracy if the judiciary, the only institution to whom the common man takes recourse to with trust to redress his grievance, is asked to play a subservient role to the executive than as an institution with powers to call a spade a spade.
V. Subramanian,
Chennai
