The Supreme Court today refused to refer, for now, to a larger bench a batch of petitions challenging the validity of the National Judicial Appointments Commission in the context of the judicial primacy in judges’ appointments as a preliminary issue.
The court made it clear that it was not ruling out the possibility of referring the matter to a larger bench after hearing the challenge to the NJAC on merits as well.
The constitution bench by an interim order also directed the government to extend by three months or till the date of superannuation, whichever is earlier, the services of the additional judges whose two-year tenure will come to an end during the pendency of the hearing of these petitions.
“The prayer made by the Attorney General for disposing of the issue with reference to the need for revisiting the two judgments rendered in 1993 and 1998 to be decided first as preliminary issue before hearing the main matter is declined,” said the constitution bench comprising justices JS Khehar, J Chelameswar, Madan B Lokur, Kurian Joseph and AK Goel in its interim order.
The court said that of the remaining three days (Wednesday to Friday) before vacations, the government and others who are supporting the NJAC will get two and half days for their arguments, leaving half a day for the petitioners opposing the NJAC to make their rejoinder submissions.
The Supreme Court Advocate on Record Association along with Bar Association of India, NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation and others have challenged the constitutional amendment act and the legislation paving way for the NJAC
As the hearing begun in the post lunch session, attorney general Mukul Rohatgi told the court that it would not be possible for him to complete the argument on the merits of the NJAC in such a short time of two and half days. His position was supported by senior counsel KK Venugopal appearing for Madhya Pradesh.
After consulting lawyers from both the sides, the court decided to hold the hearing from June 8 and that it will continue till the conclusions of arguments by both the sides. This would mean that most of the hearing would take place during the summer vacation of the apex court.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
What is the basis on which Rohatgi is arguing that even if the constitutional amendments are struck down, the collegium cannot be revived as the earlier provisions have been permanently deleted from the Constitution?
A TOI news report states that after the order was passed yesterday, Rohatgi objected to the cryptic and un-reasoned order and protested that the Court had earlier indicated that it would pass a reasoned order on the issue of reference to a larger bench. Did the Bench deliberately mislead as to its intent?
What was the exact issue on which the Bench agreed to pass an order.
The order reproduced below is very cryptic. Its not really exactly clear what this means. It can be read in more than one way. Maybe the GOI should apply for a clarification of this order. Its also an un-reasoned order and gives no reasons for this decision to decline whatever it is that the court declined.
“The prayer made by the Attorney General for disposing of the issue with reference to the need for revisiting the two judgments rendered in 1993 and 1998 to be decided first as preliminary issue before hearing the main matter is declined,”
A TOI report states that Rohatgi was hesitant to cancel his vacation plans and had to be persuaded. Is this true?
Also it seems to me that so far arguments before the 5 judge bench have been very unstructured and everything has been lumped together under the general heading of arguments on merits.
Also, has J. Khehar authored any mind-blowing judgments in his career, constitutional or otherwise.
The calibre of the persons involved from both the Bar and the Bench in deciding this great constitutional question is relevant.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first