New Delhi, June 6 (IANS) As the Supreme Court resumes hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the NJAC for the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary on Monday, the legal fraternity has appreciated the move.
Acknowledging that perhaps it is for the first time that the constitution bench of the top court is holding hearings during summer vacations, senior counsel Bishwajit Bhattacharyya says, “I think that the Supreme Court as an institution is dead serious to give a verdict on this issue which is of seminal importance to the largest democracy in the world.”
“That is why the Supreme Court, in my view, has decided to deliver a verdict one way or the other in the quickest possible time frame.”, says Bhattacharyya who is one of the petitioners before the court challenging the validity of the NJAC (National Judicial Appointment Commission) on the grounds of its being in breach of the independence of judiciary – the basic structure of the Constitution.
Describing it as a “good thing”, activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan says that “they are sending a message” and may be holding the hearings during vacations to avoid affecting other cases which may be delayed if hearing is held on regular working days after the vacations. “That must also be there” behind the decision to hold the hearing during summer break, says Bhushan.
The five-judge constitution bench comprising Justices Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. Chelameswar, Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Adarsh Kumar Goel affects the cases before two benches as Justices Jagdish Singh Khehar, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph constitute one combination and Justices J. Chelsmeswar and Adarsh Kumar Goel together constitute another bench.
When all the five judges sit in the constitution bench, then matters that are to come before the bench of Justices Jagdish Singh Khehar, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph and the bench of Justices J. Chelsmeswar and Adarsh Kumar Goel get adjourned till the constitution bench is hearing the challenge to the NJAC.
The apex court constitution bench is hearing a batch of petitions including one by the Supreme Court Advocate on Record Association along with Bar Association of India, NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation and others challenging the constitutional validity of the Constitution’s Ninety Nine Amendment Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014.