SC declares NJAC unconstitutional, collegium system to continue

October 16, 2015

New Delhi, Oct 16: In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court today declared as unconstitutional the law brought by the NDA government to replace the over two-decade- old collegium system of judges appointing judges in the higher judiciary.

NJAC
The apex court, which quashed the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act in an unanimous verdict, also declared as unconstitutional the 99th amendment to the Constitution to bring in the Act to replace the collegium system.

The unanimous verdict quashing the NJAC Act was delivered by a five-judge Constitution bench comprising justices J S Khehar, J Chelameswar M B Lokur, Kurian Joseph and A K Goel which also rejected the plea of Central government to refer for review to larger bench the 1993 and 1998 verdict of the apex court on the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary.

While four judges held as unconstitutional the 99th amendment of the Constitution, Justice J Chelameswar differed with them and gave his own reasons for upholding its validity.

Justice Khehar, who pronounced the judgment for the bench, said that the system of appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice and judges of the high courts and transfer of judges from one high court to another has been existing in the Constitution prior to the 99th amendment.

The bench also said it was willing to take suggestions for improving the collegium system of appointment of judges and posted the hearing for November 3.

Justice Khehar said each one of us have recorded their reasons and order has been jointly signed.

The five-judge bench had reserved its judgment on July 15 on a bunch of pleas challenging the consitutional validity of the NJAC Act and the 99th amendment in the Constitution after a marathon hearing for 31 days on the issue.

The petitions challenging the new legislation were filed by Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) and others contending that the new law on the selection and appointment of judges was unconstitutional and aimed at hurting the independence of judiciary.

However, the Centre had defended the introduction of the new law saying that the two-decade-old collegium system where judges appointed judges was not free from defects and got the support of the Supreme Court Bar Association.

The measure was also supported by 20 state governments which had ratified the NJAC Act and the constitutional amendment.

One of the contentious provisions of the new law was the inclusion of two eminent persons to the NJAC which included Chief Justice of India, two senior most judges of the apex court and the Union Law Minister.

Under the law, two eminent persons will be nominated by a committee consisting of the Chief Justice of India, Prime Minister, and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha or where there is no such LoP, the leader of single largest Opposition Party in the House.

Further, it envisaged that of the two eminent persons, one would be from the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBCs, minority communities or a woman.

As per the Act, the eminent persons shall be nominated for a period of three years and shall not be eligible for re-nomination.

The issue of eminent persons on the panel was a major bone of contention between the parties and, on final day of hearing, the bench had differed with the Centre, saying inclusion of laymen in the new system of judicial appointments "cannot work".

Defending the provision for inclusion of two eminent persons, Attorney General Mukul Rohtagi had said, "If we can have laymen in some other Commissions and Tribunals then why not in the six-member NJAC."

Noted jurists like Fali Nariman, Anil Divan and Ram Jethmalani were among prominent senior advocates who had argued against the NJAC replacing the collegium system.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 25,2024

EVM.jpg

Electronics Corporation of India Ltd and Bharat Electronics Ltd have refused to disclose the names and contact details of the manufacturers and suppliers of various components of EVMs and VVPATs under the RTI Act citing "commercial confidence", according to RTI responses from the PSUs to an activist.

Activist Venkatesh Nayak had filed two identical Right To Information applications with the ECIL and BEL, seeking the details of the manufacturers and suppliers of various components used in the assembling of the electronic voting machines (EVMs) and voter-verifiable paper audit trail (VVPATs).

The VVPAT is an independent vote verification system which enables electors to see whether their votes have been cast correctly.

The ECIL and the BEL, public sector undertakings under the Ministry of Defence, manufacture EVMs and VVPATs for the Election Commission.

Nayak also sought a copy of the purchase orders for the components from both PSUs.

"Information sought is in commercial confidence. Hence details cannot be provided under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act," BEL said in its response.

A similar response was sent by ECIL which said the details requested are related to a product which is being manufactured by ECIL, and third party in nature.

"Disclosing of details will affect the Competitive position of ECIL. Hence, Exemption is claimed under section 8(1) (d) of RTI ACT, 2005," it said.

In response to the purchase order copies, ECIL's central public information officer said the information is "voluminous" which would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority.

"Further, the information will give away the design details of EVM components. The same may pose a danger to the machines produced. Hence, the exemption is claimed U/s 7(9) and under section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005," ECIL said.

Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure the information, including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.

Section 7(9) of the Act says the information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.

"I don't know whose interests they are trying to protect against the right to know of close to a billion-strong electorate. ECIL said that disclosure of the purchase orders will reveal the design details of the components and this may pose a danger to the machines produced. ECIL did not upload even a signed copy of its reply on the RTI Online Portal," Nayak said.

He said it is reasonable to infer that the two companies are not manufacturing every single item of the EVM-VVPAT combo or else the two companies would have replied that they are manufacturing all these components internally without any outsourcing being involved.

"But the electorate is expected to take everything about the voting machines based on what the ECI is claiming in its manuals and FAQs," Nayak said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 26,2024

Palakkad: Three voters from Palakkad, Malappuram and Alappuzha, and a polling agent in Kozhikode died in seperate incidents in Kerala on Friday.

A man collapsed and died after casting his vote at Vani Vilasini in Chunangad, Ottapalam here on Friday. The deceased Chandran (68) hailed from Modernkattil  in Chunangad. Though rushed to the Ottapalam taluk hopsital, he was declared dead on arrival. Palakkad had recorded a high temperature of 40 degree Celsius on Thursday.

A Madrassa teacher, who came home after voting, collapsed and died. The deceased Alikkannakkal Tharakkal Siddhique (63) was the first voter at the polling station in Vallikkanjiram School at Niramaruthur Grama Panchayat in Tirur.

Kakkazham Veiliparambu Somarajan (82), who voted and returned home from the Kakkazham SN VT High School in Alappuzha also collapsed and died. He was a voter from booth 138.

In another instance, a polling agent died after collapsing at a booth in Kuttichira, Kozhikode on Friday. Maliyekkal Anees (66), a retired KSEB engineer from Haluwa Bazaar, was LDF's polling agent at the 16th booth in Kuttichira Government Vocational Higher Secondary School. He collapsed while doing his duty in the polling booth by 8.30 am. Though rushed to the Government General Hospital, he died by 9.15am. He is survived by wife Adakkani Veettil Zereena, childrens  Fayis Ahammed, Fadhil Ahammed, Akhil Ahammed and Bilal Ahammed.

A man also died in bike accident en route to polling booth in Malappuram on Friday. The deceased is Saidu Haji (75) of Neduvan. The bike rammed a lorry near BM School in Parappanangadi.

Polling began at 7am in all 20 Lok Sabha constituencies in Kerala on Friday. 

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 22,2024

suratBJP.jpg

The BJP has opened its account in the ongoing Lok Sabha elections. The party's candidate from Gujarat's Surat constituency, Mukesh Dalal, has won the polls as all his opponents are now out of the fray.

BJP's Mukesh Dalal elected unopposed from the Surat Lok Sabha seat after all other candidates withdrew from the contest, the party's Gujarat unit chief CR Paatil said today. Today was the deadline for withdrawing nominations.

The nominations of the Congress party's Surat candidate and his substitute were rejected by the returning officer over alleged discrepancies in paperwork, a development that the Congress called an attempt at "match-fixing".

"Surat has presented the first lotus to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. I congratulate our candidate for Surat Lok Sabha seat Mukesh Dalal for getting elected unopposed," Mr Paatil posted on the microblogging website X, referring to the BJP's election symbol.

Eight candidates - seven of them independents - and Pyarelal Bharti of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) withdrew their papers.

The nomination papers of the Congress's Surat candidate Nilesh Kumbhani was rejected on Sunday after the district returning officer Saurabh Parghi found discrepancies in the signatures of the proposers.

The nomination form of Suresh Padsala, the Congress's substitute candidate from Surat, was also found invalid.

The returning officer had said the four nomination forms submitted by the two Congress candidates did not appear genuine. The proposers, in their affidavits, had said they had not signed the forms themselves, the returning officer said in the order.

Congress lawyer Babu Mangukiya said the party will approach the high court and the Supreme Court for relief.

Congress leader Jairam Ramesh in a post on X said the Surat developments indicate "democracy is under threat". "Our elections, our democracy, Babasaheb Ambedkar's Constitution - all are under a generational threat. This is the most important election of our lifetime," Mr Ramesh said.

Mr Ramesh alleged the "distress" of micro, small and medium enterprise (MSME) owners and the business community in PM Modi's "Anyay Kaal" and their anger have "spooked the BJP so badly that they are attempting to match-fix the Surat Lok Sabha polls, which they have won consistently since the 1984 Lok Sabha elections."

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.