THE TRIBUNE, NEW DELHI, SEPT 09, 2011, P.8
Oversight committee
This refers to the news report “Judicial Accountability: Legal community divided on inclusion of MPs in oversight committee” (September 5). I want to point out that this report has wrongly stated, “Under the provisions of the Bill introduced in Parliament, all the members of the oversight committee would be nominated by the Chief Justice of India”.
On the contrary, Section 18 of the Judicial Standard and Accountability Bill, 2010, says:
(1) The National Judicial Oversight Committee shall consist of the following, namely:
(a) a retired Chief Justice of India appointed by the President, after ascertaining the views of the Chief Justice of India-- Chairperson;
(b) a judge of the Supreme Court nominated by the Chief Justice of
India-- Member;
(c) the Chief Justice of a High Court nominated by the Chief Justice of India-- Member ex-officio;
(d) the Attorney General for India—ex-officio Member;
(e) an eminent person nominated by the President-- Member
Hence, it can be culled out that all the members of the oversight committee are not envisaged to be appointed by the Chief Justice of India. Kindly put the record straight accordingly.
Dr RAJENDER GOYAL, Advocate,
Bahadurgarh
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Thursday, September 1, 2011
The Report of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice and Personnel on the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010
The Report of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice and Personnel on the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010, has rightly clamored for a better system of appointment of judges. The report in most unequivocal terms intones that “the law formulated by the government for maintaining judicial accountability would have “limited success ” till the “most significant lacunae” related to the present method of appointment of judges are removed at the earliest”.
It is trite to say that concept of Independence of Higher is of colossal significance in a Democratic Republic Federal State. The “scheme and procedure of selection and appointment, transfer and removal of Judges in Higher Judiciary” is having an unexceptionally indispensable role in establishing, asserting and perpetuating the Independence of Higher Judiciary. Only competent, meritorious and qualified persons of great legal caliber, expertise, meticulousness, precision, immaculate honesty, impeccable integrity, unimpeachable character, undaunting courage and unwavering determination selected through a transparent, merit-oriented, efficacious and holistic methodology having security of tenure and necessary safeguards in place against unregulated and arbitrary transfer and removal, and discharging their duties and functions without fear or favour, and sufficiently protected against Executive’s interferences and prejudices can bring home the most cherished constitutional ideal of the ”Independence of Higher Judiciary.”
Whereas the Bill of 2010 provides for setting up of a ‘broad based’ “National Judicial Oversight Committee”(NJOC) and an ‘all Judges’ “Scrutiny Committee”, the Parliamentary Standing Committee has recommended that composition of NJOC should be broadened further representing all the three organs of the State namely, Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, and that Scrutiny Panel should also include non-judicial members.
However, needless to emphasize that Judicial accountability, transparency and independence are interwoven. To protect the sacrosanct “Independence of Higher Judiciary”, the final decision making body i.e. NJOC should comprise of ‘all judges’. Conversely, the Scrutiny Committee should be broad based as much as possible. Moreover, the matter of appointment of the judges in higher judiciary could also be entrusted to a wider body with representation from the judiciary, the executive and legislature and civil society than the present ‘Judicial Collegium’. It is suggested that it could be entrusted to the broad based "Scrutiny Committee" as proposed above which could initially screen the names and thereafter, refer the same to the NJOC for final recommendation. The matter of the transfer of the Judges/Chief Justices of the High Courts should be entrusted to the NJOC only without any interference of the Scrutiny Committee and its decision should be final. The Constitution of India may be amended appropriately, if need arises, to legally put in the place the mechanism as above enumerated.
Under the proposed law, the Higher Judiciary including the office of the Chief Justice of India should specifically be made amenable to the command of the Right to Information Act.
It is trite to say that concept of Independence of Higher is of colossal significance in a Democratic Republic Federal State. The “scheme and procedure of selection and appointment, transfer and removal of Judges in Higher Judiciary” is having an unexceptionally indispensable role in establishing, asserting and perpetuating the Independence of Higher Judiciary. Only competent, meritorious and qualified persons of great legal caliber, expertise, meticulousness, precision, immaculate honesty, impeccable integrity, unimpeachable character, undaunting courage and unwavering determination selected through a transparent, merit-oriented, efficacious and holistic methodology having security of tenure and necessary safeguards in place against unregulated and arbitrary transfer and removal, and discharging their duties and functions without fear or favour, and sufficiently protected against Executive’s interferences and prejudices can bring home the most cherished constitutional ideal of the ”Independence of Higher Judiciary.”
Whereas the Bill of 2010 provides for setting up of a ‘broad based’ “National Judicial Oversight Committee”(NJOC) and an ‘all Judges’ “Scrutiny Committee”, the Parliamentary Standing Committee has recommended that composition of NJOC should be broadened further representing all the three organs of the State namely, Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, and that Scrutiny Panel should also include non-judicial members.
However, needless to emphasize that Judicial accountability, transparency and independence are interwoven. To protect the sacrosanct “Independence of Higher Judiciary”, the final decision making body i.e. NJOC should comprise of ‘all judges’. Conversely, the Scrutiny Committee should be broad based as much as possible. Moreover, the matter of appointment of the judges in higher judiciary could also be entrusted to a wider body with representation from the judiciary, the executive and legislature and civil society than the present ‘Judicial Collegium’. It is suggested that it could be entrusted to the broad based "Scrutiny Committee" as proposed above which could initially screen the names and thereafter, refer the same to the NJOC for final recommendation. The matter of the transfer of the Judges/Chief Justices of the High Courts should be entrusted to the NJOC only without any interference of the Scrutiny Committee and its decision should be final. The Constitution of India may be amended appropriately, if need arises, to legally put in the place the mechanism as above enumerated.
Under the proposed law, the Higher Judiciary including the office of the Chief Justice of India should specifically be made amenable to the command of the Right to Information Act.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
