The Government is likely to face the Opposition’s intransigence on some “seminal” legislative proposals for judicial reforms — the Constitution (One Hundred and Twentieth Amendment) Bill, which is an enabling legislation to provide for the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill and the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill.
The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill and the Constitution (One Hundred and Twentieth Amendment) Bill lapsed consequent to the dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha while the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill is pending in the Rajya Sabha.
The Government is keen to enact these legislations and Law and Justice Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad has already written to all parties, asking them to communicate their views on the proposed judicial reforms.
“Though the President is the appointing authority, the primacy in these appointments has been assigned to the Chief Justice,” said Prasad in his letter dated July 17.
“The existing procedure for appointment of judges is based on the Supreme Court judgement dated October 6, 1993 in the case of Supreme Court advocates on Record versus Union of India and the Advisory Opinion of the Supreme Court dated October 28, 1998.
“Based on the above judgement and the Advisory Opinion, Memoranda of Procedure (MOP) for appointments were prepared and are being currently followed. We believe that a broad-based mechanism should be established for selection of judges,” the Minister added.
Not enthusiastic However, Opposition parties, including the Congress that had moved the Bills in Parliament, have been less than enthusiastic about Prasad’s invitation for comments on the two proposals.
“We want an all-party meeting on both the proposals. Now that the Government has refused to appoint even a Leader of Opposition, we would like to see how independent the process of appointment of judges is likely to be.
“Scrapping the judges collegium has to be replaced with a system that is at least as independent,” said Janata Dal (United) President Sharad Yadav.
Congress condition According to Abhishek Manu Singhvi, senior Congress leader and member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee that had prepared a report on the necessary amendments to the Constitution (One Hundred and Twentieth Amendment) Bill, 2013 and Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, his party is willing to cooperate on the condition that the Government is not merely planning “to set up a talking shop”.
“We will naturally support anything in genuine national interest. But we all know what the problem is and where the solution lies.
“If what the Government is suggesting is aimed at monitoring and implementation, we are all for it.
“But we are not interested in yet another talking shop,” Singhvi told BusinessLine .