Huge showdown

Amid escalating attacks from the Centre on the Supreme Court’s Collegium system of appointments to higher judiciary, former Supreme Court judge Rohinton Fali Nariman, who himself was a part of the collegium before retiring in August 2021, took on Law Minister Kiren Rijiju head-on at a public event on Friday. Calling his public remarks on the judiciary ‘diatribe’, Nariman reminded the Law Minister that it is his ‘bounden duty’ to accept the judgements of the court, whether ‘right or wrong’. Without naming him, he also took on Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who has questioned the basic structure doctrine, saying the basic structure is here to stay, and “thank god it has come to stay”.On the Centre “sitting on” names recommended by the Collegium, he said it was “deadly for democracy”, and suggested a 30-day deadline for the government to respond, or the recommendations get automatically approved.”We have heard a diatribe by the Law Minister of the day against this process. Let me assure the Law Minister that there are two basic Constitutional fundamentals that he must know. One fundamental is, unlike the USA, a minimum of five unelected judges are trusted with the interpretation of the Constitution Article 145(3). There is no equivalent in the USA. So minimum 5, what we call Constitution Bench, are trusted to interpret the Constitution. Once those five or more have interpreted the Constitution, it is your bounden duty as an authority under Article 144 to follow that judgement. Now, you may criticise it. As a citizen, I may criticise it, no problem. But never forget, unlike me … I am a citizen today, you are an authority and as an authority you are bound by that judgement, right or wrong,” he said.The government has been pressing for a greater role in the appointment of judges, which has been the domain of the Supreme Court collegium or panel of senior most judges since 1993. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar has also backed the Centre, questioning the basic structure doctrine and indicating that the judiciary should know its limits. He called the striking down of the NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission) Act a “severe compromise” of Parliamentary sovereignty.