The Supreme Court has recently taken a historic decision to disclose the reasons in favour of recommendations by the collegium system with regard to judges. The recent transfer of Justice Jayant M Patel might have triggered this recent move.
After the Second Judges Case (1993) the Supreme Court reserved the autonomy in the selection of judges as the judgement held that “consultation” of the President with the Chief Justice of India in matters of appointment meant “concurrence”. Though in the Third Judge case (1987) SC opined that consultation meant consultation of the plurality of judges, the appointments had always remained debatable due to the secrecy maintained by the collegium. It was also a bone of contention between the judiciary and legislature.
The collegium note uploaded online gives a brief summary of the professional performances of the candidates, including a rating on their judgements. Suhrith Parthasarthy , an advocate in Madras High Court , in his article “Collegium and Transparency”, which appeared in The Hindu dated 1 November 2017, observed how the present system still falls short of achieving the goal of transparency.
Though a certain degree of discreetness is required as in many cases the reasons might pertain to sitting judges, it is important to strike the right balance between disclosure and discreetness.
Nevertheless, this step albeit small is a step in the right direction and it is hoped that Supreme Court will introduce all other reforms gradually, disclosure under RTI being the foremost.
No comments:
Post a Comment