+

SC criticises Centre on judicial appointment, again

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a stern reminder to the government that while parliament can make a law – a point forcefully made by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar in Rajya Sabha yesterday — it was within the court’s power to “scrutinise” it. “Speeches made by the high constitutional functionaries in public, making comments on […]

Supreme court
Supreme court

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a stern reminder to the government that while parliament can make a law – a point forcefully made by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar in Rajya Sabha yesterday — it was within the court’s power to “scrutinise” it. “Speeches made by the high constitutional functionaries in public, making comments on the Supreme Court Collegium, are not very well taken. You have to advise them,” the top court also said in the latest round of back and forth on the judges’ appointment issue.  
Centre faced Supreme Court’s ire as the top court again criticised the government over judicial appointment issues and remarked that Parliament has the right to enact new law but at the same time must adhere to existing legal positions.
A bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said that it expects the Attorney General to play the role of the senior most law officer to advise the government on the existing legal position. The court also said the government cannot conveniently cite views of some judges on MoP to oppose Collegium

recommendations. The Supreme Court said that Parliament has the right to enact a law but it is also subject to the scrutiny of courts and “it is important that the law laid down by this court is followed else people would follow the law which they think is correct”.
The court observation came while hearing a plea against the Centre for keeping pending a name that the Collegium recommended in the list for appointment to various High Courts and the apex court. The court also took note of the Centre’s recent decision to send back a second time reiterated names and said it is a breach of its earlier direction. The court said that it is not aware of the special circumstance for which this name was dropped.

Tags: