Having a state rep (a voice of the people) on the collegium does not tantamount to holding a veto vote. Your comment reveals this flawed and baseless presumption.
Past nominations have been suboptimal, with favoritism and nepotism creeping into the selection process. A fact that even anti-Modi voters won't deny.
A state rep (without veto) and a collegium supported by a panel of experts and eminent persons can/ should -
1. better ensure that the state exercises its vote and speaks with more responsibility and good information; and
2. better ensure a reduction in instances of favoritism and nepotism in the appointment process.
Can an improved system be beaten?
Ans Yes. Because there isn't such a thing as a flawless system anywhere in the world.
Should the status quo continue simply because a step in the right direction isn't a "guarantee" against tyranny?
I agree. I can't (and shouldn't) argue logic and common sense against bias:
Bias demolishes one's patience and space for dialogue. It has evidently inhibited your ability even to appreciate that Law Minister Rijiju has so far:
- delineated the issues that have made certain judicial appointments appear more tyrannical than not; and - offered his prescription for improving the judicial appointments process and opened a dialogue.
Now let's look at the root of the problem:
- Judicial appointments (by extension, designation of senior advocates) are in the hands of a few, who have, in some instances, exercised their power in a tyrannical manner - by preferring their favourites/kith and kin over a competent and deserving candidate; - Favouritism and nepotism have become pervasive to the degree that they influence (a) the distribution of work in the bar and (b) opportunities and the timing of such opportunities for deserving candidates
Rijijus' prescription gives the electorate a seat on the table (in the collegium) through a State Rep. This rep can and should speak truth to power and reduce incidences of favouritism and nepotism. The present system gives us, the electorate, no such voice. The executives' role is limited to merely offering administrative and intelligence support - all of which can be shot down by the collegium.
Is the present system riddled with flaws and loopholes that the state can exploit? - yes, no doubt.
Is this reason enough for us to make peace with the status quo and have no dialogue for improvement?
No. We should use dialogue to find a better system.
Coming back to you, sir and your bias -
I don’t mean to be personal, but if you weren’t such an obstinate cynic, you would, by now, have been listing out non-negotiables that should precede any policy improvement on the collegium - to ensure that the tyranny that we are witnessing in certain judicial appointments isn't perpetuated with the State in the mix.
Past nominations have been suboptimal, with favoritism and nepotism creeping into the selection process. A fact that even anti-Modi voters won't deny.
A state rep (without veto) and a collegium supported by a panel of experts and eminent persons can/ should -
1. better ensure that the state exercises its vote and speaks with more responsibility and good information; and
2. better ensure a reduction in instances of favoritism and nepotism in the appointment process.
Can an improved system be beaten?
Ans Yes. Because there isn't such a thing as a flawless system anywhere in the world.
Should the status quo continue simply because a step in the right direction isn't a "guarantee" against tyranny?
Ans No.
Bias demolishes one's patience and space for dialogue. It has evidently inhibited your ability even to appreciate that Law Minister Rijiju has so far:
- delineated the issues that have made certain judicial appointments appear more tyrannical than not; and
- offered his prescription for improving the judicial appointments process and opened a dialogue.
Now let's look at the root of the problem:
- Judicial appointments (by extension, designation of senior advocates) are in the hands of a few, who have, in some instances, exercised their power in a tyrannical manner - by preferring their favourites/kith and kin over a competent and deserving candidate;
- Favouritism and nepotism have become pervasive to the degree that they influence (a) the distribution of work in the bar and (b) opportunities and the timing of such opportunities for deserving candidates
Rijijus' prescription gives the electorate a seat on the table (in the collegium) through a State Rep. This rep can and should speak truth to power and reduce incidences of favouritism and nepotism. The present system gives us, the electorate, no such voice. The executives' role is limited to merely offering administrative and intelligence support - all of which can be shot down by the collegium.
Is the present system riddled with flaws and loopholes that the state can exploit? - yes, no doubt.
Is this reason enough for us to make peace with the status quo and have no dialogue for improvement?
No. We should use dialogue to find a better system.
Coming back to you, sir and your bias -
I don’t mean to be personal, but if you weren’t such an obstinate cynic, you would, by now, have been listing out non-negotiables that should precede any policy improvement on the collegium - to ensure that the tyranny that we are witnessing in certain judicial appointments isn't perpetuated with the State in the mix.
1. Retd Justice RS Sodhi (to Barkha Dutt's Mojo Story) https://youtu.be/M4uas85m6Fs
2. Padma Vibhushan awardee and Jurist Fali Sam Nariman (to Rajdeep Sardessai) https://youtu.be/TxUEPlXdEy8