A fifth petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) meant to replace the two-decades-old Collegium system of judicial appointments to the highest courts.
Four other petitions against the NJAC Act, 2014, and the Constitution (121st Amendment) Bill, 2014, the latter giving the Commission constitutional status, were filed in January this year in the Supreme Court, but are yet to be listed for hearing.
The petition filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, through counsel Prashant Bhushan, said the NJAC violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
It contended that only a full-time body which functioned with transparency could make proper appointments and the current NJAC was neither full time nor transparent.
“Selecting more than 100 judges of the higher judiciary every year [from among thousands of potential candidates] in a rational and fair manner is an onerous task requiring a full-time and not an ex-officio body,” the petition said.
It argued that the political executive seemed not interested in creating an independent full-time body as existed in the United Kingdom to select judicial appointees.
The petition argued that judicial integrity, independence and review were part of the basic structure of the Constitution and to ensure them, the “best persons” should be appointed judges.
Published - February 14, 2015 03:16 am IST
