New Delhi: Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar has suggested that the Supreme Court’s 2015 declaration of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) as “unconstitutional” was not only a blow to the sovereignty and supremacy of Parliament but also raised fundamental questions about “whether we are at all relevant”.
Speaking in the Rajya Sabha, Dhankhar described the alleged recovery of cash from the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma—who has been repatriated from Delhi to the Allahabad High Court—as an “extraordinarily painful scenario”, adding that “things would have been different” had the NJAC been in place.
“It concerns sovereignty of parliament, supremacy of parliament, and whether we are at all relevant. If we enact an amendment of the constitution and that is not executable, I have no doubt the Parliament is possessed of the power to ensure what emanated from the Indian parliament, sanctified by the requisite number of state legislatures, holds the field,” Dhankhar asserted.
He added that now is the “befitting occasion for all of us to reiterate that because that was a visionary step endorsed by parliament”, remarks that amounted to a direct appeal to all political parties to back the NJAC if the government chooses to revive it. Dhankhar made these remarks just hours before his scheduled meeting with Rajya Sabha floor leaders on the matter.
Also Read: Judge row: V-P Dhankhar lauds CJI’s ‘transparency’, accepts Kharge’s call for RS floor leaders’ meet
NJAC and concerns over judicial independence
On Monday, the Vice-President met with Rajya Sabha Leader of the House J.P. Nadda and Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge, who suggested that the floor leaders of all parties should be consulted on the issue.
Speaking after Dhankhar in the Rajya Sabha Tuesday, Kharge acknowledged the Chairman’s “deep knowledge” of legal matters but noted that he could have refrained from expressing his views on the NJAC without first listening to the perspectives of floor leaders.
“Without listening to all, you shared your views, perhaps you could have listened to us before speaking,” Kharge remarked. Opposition parties remain apprehensive that the government could introduce measures under the guise of reviving the NJAC that might compromise the independence of the judiciary.
Ever since assuming office as Vice-President, Dhankhar has pushed no proposal with as much vigour as the NJAC. He said that floor leaders would be discussing “certain constraints” imposed by judicial orders on state actions—an implicit reference to the Supreme Court’s 2015 verdict overturning the NJAC Act, which had been passed by Parliament with near-unanimous support.
“I seek your suggestions on one important point. What emanated from Indian Parliament as a historic development with rare convergence of unanimity since independence found acceptance by needed state legislatures. We need to reflect on what happened to that. Under the constitution there is no provision that allows anyone to tinker with that. There’s no Constitutional provision of review or appeal of a constitutional amendment.
“Now before the nation there are two situations – one which emanated from the Indian Parliament duly endorsed by state legislatures, sanctified by the President by appending signatures under article 111. And second is a judicial order. Now we are at a crossroads. I strongly urge members to reflect there can be no breach by any institution of what emanated from the Parliament endorsed by state legislatures. And that should, again I reiterate, the mechanism holding the field,” Dhankhar asserted.
The NJAC proposal
The NJAC was intended to replace the existing collegium system of judicial appointments. Under the proposed framework, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) would serve as its ex officio chairperson, alongside the two senior-most Supreme Court judges, the Union Minister of Law and Justice, and two eminent members from civil society. One of these eminent members was to be nominated by a committee comprising the CJI, the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, while the other was to be either a woman or a representative from the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, or minority communities.
On Monday, Dhankhar had praised CJI Sanjiv Khanna for his actions following the discovery of large amounts of cash at Justice Varma’s residence.
“It is for the first time since independence that a chief justice of India has in a transparent accountable manner put all material available to him in public domain and shared it without keeping anything with the court. This is a step in the right direction,” Dhankhar stated.
(Edited by Radifah Kabir)
Also Read: Impeach Justice Varma & look into all his verdicts, Allahabad HC bar association demands
