New Delhi: Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad has expressed strong reservations against the Supreme Court collegium system and the striking down of the government’s proposal to set up a National Judicial Appointments Commission to appoint judges to the higher judiciary.
Prasad was speaking at the launch of a book titled Indian Constitution Revisited, edited by Deen Dayal Upadhyay Research Centre director Mahesh Chandra Sharma and Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts chairman Ram Bahadur Rai, in New Delhi Friday.
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had, in 2015, struck down the NJAC proposal passed by Parliament as “unconstitutional”, and retained the collegium system by a 4:1 verdict.
Prasad said there was a need to resurrect the NJAC proposal.
“The Prime Minster of India can take the right decision in appointing the President, Vice-President, Chief Election Commissioner, Comptroller and Auditor General… He is the chief of all defence mechanisms, he has control over the nuclear button, but he will make the wrong decision in the selection of judges… This is very flawed reasoning given by Supreme Court while striking down NJAC, and needs to be changed,” he said. “We have serious objections to the reasoning given by the Supreme Court.”
Prasad said the collegium, whereby a panel of senior Supreme Court judges appoints judges to the higher judiciary, is actually not part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and that before the system was introduced, judges appointed by previous governments stood firm and delivered the best of judgments.
Also read: SC Collegium rejects govt order, recommends elevation of 4 advocates as Karnataka HC judges
‘No need for new Constitution’
Prasad emphasised that there was no need for a new Constitution, but there was a need for introspection — he called it “kya khoya kya paya”, meaning what was lost or gained.
Prasad questioned the “variable clarity” on the basic structure of the Constitution, and the separation of powers as defined by it. He said the definition of the basic structure of the Constitution should not vary according to different judges, and that the separation of power is also part of the basic structure and the Supreme Court should honour the legislative power of elected representatives and Parliament.
He insisted that while there are shortcomings in the Constitution, there is also a lot of strength inbuilt into it.
However, Sharma, one of the editors of the book, disagreed with the minister, saying there were anomalies in the Constitution that needed to be revisited. As an example, he spoke about the disagreement on the concept of federalism in the Constituent Assembly, when Jayaprakash Narayan questioned the future President of India Dr Rajendra Prasad on the concept of ‘gram swarajya’ being absent from the Constitution. He blamed Jawaharlal Nehru for not following democratic process and imposing his own vision on the Constituent Assembly.
Delhi University vice-chancellor Yogesh Tyagi also spoke in favour of rewriting the Constitution. “Our Constitution was not prepared according to a globalised world. This is a new world, and in this, the future of the country depend on international treaties, investment policies and foreign policy. But our Constitution does not cover these aspects,” Tyagi said.
The book features 23 articles written by RSS ideologues and thinkers, who have questioned the making of the Constitution, called the process of its framing “undemocratic”, with some even going to the extent of questioning the lack of “Indianness” in the Constitution and calling it a Euro-American Constitution.
Also read: Of SC’s 4 new judges, one junked plea against Yogi and another brought CJI under RTI
It’s like allowing the litigant to choose his own judges and of course he will always choose the judge of his favour. .. .. .. . The last pillar of democracy the judiciary is already under attack not soon enough it will be vanquished.. ..
The present collegium system is nothing but a process for selection of judges for conntinuation of their legacy in judiciary. There must be a fair and transparent system for selection of judges in higher judiciary which requires at least a minimum national level qualifying written exam.
Another attempt by ruling party BJP government and their associates to intimidate and arm twist the judiciary. A new institution where they have no RSS henchmen.
There should be a proper system of evaluation of performance of judges, with minimum human intervention. It is not a very difficult job. It can be developed by using highly sofisticated software specially designed to cater the purpose. Self judging is dangerous. There must be some check. Further no one is above the law. Even the Supreme Court judges.
Extremely dangerous thinking of law minister, Mr Ravi Shankar to concentrate all powers in hands of the Prime Minister. His logic that “since the Prime Minster of India can take the right decision in appointing the President, Vice-President, Chief Election Commissioner, Comptroller and Auditor General… he is the chief of all defence mechanisms, he has control over the nuclear button, he will not make the wrong decision in the selection of judges” is absolutely against the spirit of democracy. Prime Ministers take many wrong decisions in appointments. Democracy does not mean that all powers should be vested in the Prime Minister only because he is the elected head. This is very flawed reasoning given by Mr. Ravi Shankar and is certainly against the basic temperament of our constitution. His idea will lead this country to an authoritarian rule where the PM will be the dictator. PM is not a representative of thought process of entire population of India. If calculated properly he is hardly supported by 20% of the population. Secondly, if I make some one my representative, it dies not mean that he will represent my entire thought process. He is a different individual and only a very small part of my mind he may represent.
RSS has borrowed it’s vision from Hitler. Supreme Court was correct in striking down NJAC proposal in allotment of judges and the collegium system should continue. Serious objections of Mr Ravi Shankar to the existing Collegium system reflects that he bears serious abhorrence to democracy. It would be healthier for democracy if PM is kept away from appointment process of executives of all constitutional institutions.
Our constitution is a cut paste constitution. Borrowed features from constitution of different countries. Our leaders of yesterday’s and today’s are not capable of giving constitution of our own. Judicial system and judiciary are of colonial mind -set .Sufferer are common men.
At least collegium ensures there are still some judges who know law in service. Once it goes the Govt can fully interfere with courts too. Already we don’t trust anything else in India. Once govt gets to appoint judges the courts too will become like ED IT election commission etc. We all know those things are now just for harassing opposition and those expressing different opinion about the Government.
RSP is not the law nor above the law and should graciously accept the verdict of the SC as he cannot debate nor challenge the verdict,,,, better he does not try arm twisting tactics
Emergency was OK for SC then. Now onwards let executive and legislative also have absolute power similar to SC!
All those who participated in the debate being from the nickerwalla clan have spoken their view point on the Constitution. Dangerous that the country is in their hands today.
Rightl comment. ?
What is indianness in the constitution? Is it mob lynching? Is it cow worship? Is it breaking lemon for aircraft? Is it torturing dalits, minorities and poor laborers and daily wage earners? Is it telling lies to the people? Is it denying the basic rights of people? What is indianness and what is foreignness? Only prasad is intelligent and all others are fools? Was the constitution not valid for seven decades? Wisdom has now only dawned on prasad? First learn to respect the constitution. Just by blaming , prasad wants to create a wrong impression towards yhe constitution.
?
Given the increasingly fragile state of institutions, this issue could be deferred for considerable time.