Active Stocks
Thu Mar 28 2024 15:59:33
  1. Tata Steel share price
  2. 155.90 2.00%
  1. ICICI Bank share price
  2. 1,095.75 1.08%
  1. HDFC Bank share price
  2. 1,448.20 0.52%
  1. ITC share price
  2. 428.55 0.13%
  1. Power Grid Corporation Of India share price
  2. 277.05 2.21%
Business News/ Politics / Policy/  AG Mukul Rohatgi asks SC if there is hesitation in referring NJAC case to a larger bench
BackBack

AG Mukul Rohatgi asks SC if there is hesitation in referring NJAC case to a larger bench

Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi asks five-judge bench why it is reluctant to refer petitions against National Judicial Appointments Commission to a larger bench consisting of 11 judges

The 1993 ruling by the apex court is responsible for the collegium system, that has been responsible for judicial appointments for over two decades now. Photo: MintPremium
The 1993 ruling by the apex court is responsible for the collegium system, that has been responsible for judicial appointments for over two decades now. Photo: Mint

New Delhi: The hearing on the constitutional validity of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) continued on Friday with attorney general Mukul Rohatgi asking the five-judge bench as to why it was reluctant to refer the petitions against NJAC to a larger bench consisting of 11 judges.

He wanted the court to send the case to a larger bench so that the question on the “primacy of the chief justice", which was laid down in a 1993 verdict delivered by nine judges, be reconsidered.

“Why is there hesitancy," Rohatgi asked the court.

The 1993 ruling by the apex court is responsible for the collegium system, that has been responsible for judicial appointments for over two decades now.

Defending the NJAC, he said its six-member panel had a “mix" of several stakeholders and also gave “primacy" to the judiciary, as there will be three representatives from the judiciary in the panel.

The NJAC will be a six-member committee with the Chief Justice of India, two senior most judges of the apex court, the law minister and two eminent individuals.

The court also considered splitting the issues of the validity of NJAC and the constitutional amendment and the legality of the 1993 ruling. But it was opposed by Rohatgi and states like Haryana, represented by lawyer Harish Salve.

Lawyer Fali S. Nariman, however, opposed the reference to a larger bench, saying that it was an exercise in vain. He argued that the interpretation given to the provision of law in the 1993 verdict had been done away through the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act (laying down the NJAC) and would serve no purpose. He urged the court to continue hearing the validity of the NJAC on its merits.

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: 09 May 2015, 12:57 AM IST
Next Story footLogo
Recommended For You
Switch to the Mint app for fast and personalized news - Get App