Criticism pointed at the judiciary appears to have gone a bit overboard too, considering that the holder of a Constitutional post like the Vice-President had virtually declared war while hinting at aiming for a political consensus to hit back at the judiciary by floating the idea of a national commission to appoint judges in which the executive will also have a say
The tussle over the balance of powers among the legislature, the judiciary and the executive, has surfaced again leading to much rancour. There is much to be said about all sides involved in this latest battle though the genesis lies in the ruling that virtually dictated to the President that he/she takes a decision on Bills passed in state Assemblies upon which governors may have sat or referred to the President or simply refused to give assent despite the Bills having been passed twice.
Criticism pointed at the judiciary appears to have gone a bit overboard too, considering that the holder of a Constitutional post like the Vice-President had virtually declared war while hinting at aiming for a political consensus to hit back at the judiciary by floating the idea of a national commission to appoint judges in which the executive will also have a say.
It is moot whether the Vice-President, who holds a largely ceremonial post, is not overstepping his powers in calling for action on an NJAC. And yet no one is to be denied his opinion on even most sensitive matters and the Vice-President may only be exercising his freedom of speech in broaching the subject of judicial overreach, though he does it in an adversarial tone, as is his wont.
The order, by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, does hint at overreach as the order spelt out how the President, a Constitutional authority who is head of state and who must give his/her assent to the appointment of all members of the highest judiciary, has had a deadline thrust upon her regarding decisions on Bills passed by the legislature.
Let it be said that the issue of governors’ action or inaction, however irksome they have proved by raking up too frequently the issue of balance of powers, should ideally have been ruled upon by a Constitutional bench rather than just any two members of the Supreme Court. Of course, the right to seek a remedy lies with the Union government that can appeal against the order in the top court.
It is in threatening to take the issue to the court of the people in the typical fashion of those who get a mandate from the voters to rule and hence assume a moral superiority in wielding power — as has been shown frequently in Indian political history, including at the time of the worst ever crisis faced by democracy during the Emergency — that all such arguments contribute to a malevolent atmosphere.
Logic may be seen to prevail in the matter of the Collegium of the Supreme Court appointing judges, even though it may offer scope for nepotism and favouritism. The government of the executive, which is a party to around 80 per cent of all litigation in the country, can hardly be seen to be fair if the absolute power to appoint judges were to devolve upon it.
A system in which Judges appointed by the executive adjudicating on legal disputes involving the state can hardly be passed off as fair. Remember the golden principle that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. And yet these important Constitutional matters must be worked upon in a calm atmosphere free of acrimony.
