Press "Enter" to skip to content

SC no to Centre`s plea to reject PILs on judges` appointment

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today asserted that it cannot “run away from its own cause” and refused to budge on the Centre’s plea that the petitions on judicial reforms, including appointments of judges in the high courts and the apex court, should not be heard on the “judicial side” and be rejected.

A bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar said that once a petition has been admitted for hearing by issuing notice, it cannot be wished away without a “formal order” of finality.

“It is our cause. How can we run away from our own cause,” the bench, also comprising Justice N V Ramana, said when Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Centre and a lawyer, who has sought to intervene in the proceedings, submitted that this court should not hear the pleas.

The bench also prima facie did not agree with the contention of lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhaya, one of the PIL petitioners, that there should be all India judicial services to select judges.

“In a federal structure, the high court is the highest court of the state and it is not under the control either of the central government or the Supreme Court,” it said.

At the outset, Rohatgi said that there should not be parallel proceedings as the executive and the judiciary are dealing with the issue of appointment of judges on the administrative side and the pleas be dismissed. The court rejected the submission.

Referring to earlier proceedings, the top law officer said that the Centre has been filing reports as and when it has been asked by the court to inform about the latest status on the appointment and transfer of judges in higher judiciary.

“I have been instructed to say that the government will render all assistance,” he said while repeatedly submitting that the pleas should not be heard on the judicial side.

Rohatgi referred to the NJAC judgement and said that for almost last six months, the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), which would deal with the appointment procedures of judges, is lying in limbo.

The bench got irked when lawyer Mathews J Nedumpara, who has sought to intervene in the hearing of PILs on the issue, sought recusal of the CJI from hearing the case.

Source: Zee News