Active Stocks
Thu Apr 18 2024 15:59:07
  1. Tata Steel share price
  2. 160.00 -0.03%
  1. Power Grid Corporation Of India share price
  2. 280.20 2.13%
  1. NTPC share price
  2. 351.40 -2.19%
  1. Infosys share price
  2. 1,420.55 0.41%
  1. Wipro share price
  2. 444.30 -0.96%
Business News/ Politics / Policy/  SC refuses to entertain petitions challenging judicial appointments Bill
BackBack

SC refuses to entertain petitions challenging judicial appointments Bill

The apex court said the Bill had not yet been ratified by state assemblies or received presidential assent

Judges Anil R. Dave, J. Chelameswar and A.K. Sikri, who heard the petitions, observed that there was a separation of powers between the legislature and judiciary. Photo: MintPremium
Judges Anil R. Dave, J. Chelameswar and A.K. Sikri, who heard the petitions, observed that there was a separation of powers between the legislature and judiciary. Photo: Mint

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to admit petitions challenging the constitutional amendment Bill aimed at creating a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), saying the Bill had not yet been ratified by state assemblies or received presidential assent.

It said the questions of law raised by the petitioners could be argued after the Bill receives the presidential assent.

Judges Anil R. Dave, J. Chelameswar and A.K. Sikri, who heard the petitions, observed that there was a separation of powers between the legislature and judiciary.

The Supreme Court Advocates-on-records Association, one of the petitioners represented by senior lawyer Fali S. Nariman, argued that while the legislative Bill itself wasn’t being challenged, there was a substantial question of law to be decided as to when a constitutional amendment (not considered to be within the definition of ‘law’) Bill could be challenged.

Manohar Lal Sharma, another petitioner, challenged the parliamentary proceedings which he argued had sought and subsequently passed the NJAC legislative Bill based on a constitutional provision—the 121st constitutional amendment—which hadn’t been introduced yet.

While the court seemed to find merit in the contention that there was a question of law to be considered regarding the introduction of a bill before the constitutional amendment had been passed, Sikri asked whether it was appropriate to challenge it “at this stage or later".

Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi contended that the petitions were premature, without cause of action and sought to answer only academic questions.

The petitions challenge the amendment Bill claiming it violates the basic structure of the Constitution, a concept introduced by a 13-judge bench in a 1973 decision. The petitions allege that NJAC strikes at the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers between the executive and judiciary, both of which are part of the basic structure.

Unlock a world of Benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time stock tracking, breaking news and a personalized newsfeed – it's all here, just a click away! Login Now!

Catch all the Politics News and Updates on Live Mint. Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates & Live Business News.
More Less
Published: 25 Aug 2014, 01:29 PM IST
Next Story footLogo
Recommended For You
Switch to the Mint app for fast and personalized news - Get App