Supreme Court asks for suggestions from public on Collegium

In order to ensure greater transparency in the selection process, the Supreme Court Thursday sought suggestions from the public, as well as lawyers, the Bar Council of India and others to improve the collegium system.

A five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Justices J.S. Khehar, J. Chelameswar, Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and A.K. Goel decided to enlarge the scope of the collegium system adjudication after many lawyers said more time was needed to submit their suggestions. The bench on Thursday heard senior lawyers Fali S. Nariman, Ram Jethmalani, Arvind Datar, Anil Divan, attorney-general Mukul Rohatgi, ASG Pinky Anand, Gopal Subramanium and a host of other top advocates.

Considering that over 400 vacancies in high courts have to be filled up as the entire process has come to a standstill, the bench said the matter will be heard again November 18 and 19, when one can expect a final decision.

The bench, that had on Tuesday already framed four key areas — transparency, eligibility criterion, mechanism to deal with complaints against candidates and the need for a separate secretariat for the collegium — took note of the attorney-general’s submission that all suggestions so far complied by senior counsel Arvind P. Datar and ASG Pinky Anand from the 60-odd representations received would be posted on the law and justice ministry website.

Calling it a welcome move, the bench invited greater public participation and gave time till 5 pm November 13 for posting suggestions. Taking note that the Bar Council of India was holding a meeting of representatives of the various high court bar associations and state bar councils to elicit their views on the four parameters, the bench asked the BCI to post suggestions on the law ministry’s website by 5 pm November 14. Justice Khehar reiterated the suggestions would have to be within the framework of the parameters evolved by two nine-judge benches in 1993 and 1998 as there couldn’t be any wholesale change.

When a lawyer wanted the court to consider ways and means for removal of a judge, Justice Kurian Joseph told the counsel the scope of the present exercise was limited to selection of a candidate for judgeship.

Fali S. Nariman agreed with Justice Joseph and said: “It is true many people are dissatisfied with the inquiry being conducted against sitting judges in certain cases, but Parliament could take it up and amend the Judges Inquiry Act. He said: “We are a volatile and vibrant democracy. But we have to preserve certain values.”

Observing that no distinguished jurist has been appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court though the Constitution provides for such an appointment, Justice Joseph wanted lawyers to consider this aspect as well. He made this suggestion when counsel wanted a written examination for selection of a Supreme Court judge. Justice Khehar quipped: “It will be very difficult (for judges aspiring for elevation to the apex court) to pass this examination.”