Judges don’t face polls, but public is watching: Rijiju
Judges do not have to face elections or public scrutiny but they are still assessed by the people for their judgments and the way they function, Union law minister Kiren Rijiju said on Monday, issuing yet another statement critical of the judiciary in the ongoing executive-judiciary row over the process of judges’ appointments
Judges do not have to face elections or public scrutiny but they are still assessed by the people for their judgments and the way they function, Union law minister Kiren Rijiju said on Monday, issuing yet another statement critical of the judiciary in the ongoing executive-judiciary row over the process of judges’ appointments.
Stating that judges cannot be removed or replaced like elected representatives who have to contest elections periodically, Rijiju pointed out that he has repeatedly shared his views with the judges about the latter not having to face public scrutiny.
“Judges do not have to face elections after their appointments. They don’t have to face public scrutiny either...people cannot change them because people do not elect them. But people are watching you...the judgments you give, how you work...people are not only watching but also making assessments and forming opinions,” said the minister as he addressed an event organised by a lawyers’ association in Delhi to commemorate the 74th Republic Day.
In this age of social media, Rijiju emphasised, one cannot hide anything. “A Chief Justice of India (CJI) requested the government to take some strong steps to curb attacks on the judges on social media. We gave it a thought...the judges also have the power of contempt...but what action you can take when people pass comments on a mass scale,” said the minister, adding even judges are careful about the kinds of judgments they pass.
The minister also said that difference of opinion between the executive and the judiciary is a facet of a working democracy. “You may witness sometimes that the government and the judiciary are not on the same page. If there is no debate and discussion then what good is a democracy,” said Rijiju, adding the differences between the two should not be construed as a “Mahabharata” (war).
“I have a live contact with the present CJI, justice Chandrachud, and we discuss a lot of things routinely...We can have different opinions but it does not mean we are trying to run down each other...we have no problems with each other,” said the minister.
Rijiju’s statement on Monday came a day after he sought to support the views of a retired Delhi high court judge who said the Supreme Court “hijacked” the Constitution by deciding to appoint judges itself. The minister, on Sunday, shared the video of an interview of justice R S Sodhi (retd), saying it is the “voice of a judge” and that majority of people have similar “sane views”.
Justice Sodhi said the right to frame laws lies with Parliament. The law minister said, “Actually majority of the people have similar sane views. It’s only those people who disregard the provisions of the Constitution and mandate of the people think that they are above the Constitution of India.”
“Real beauty of Indian Democracy is its success. People rule themselves through their representatives. Elected representatives represent the interests of the People & make laws. Our Judiciary is independent and our Constitution is Supreme,” the minister tweeted.
Rijiju’s posts on Sunday came at a time when the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and the high courts has become a flashpoint between the executive and the judiciary. While the minister over the last few months frequently attacked the collegium system for being “opaque” and “alien” to the Constitution, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar too weighed in questioning the top court for striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act (NJAC) which sought to give the government a greater role in judicial appointments.
In its retort, the Supreme Court in December advised the government functionaries to “exercise control”, and stressed that the Union government is bound to follow the collegium system “to a T” because that is the law of the land.
Further, the collegium recently decided to make public its reasons in support of each candidate who has been recommended for appointment as a judge, marking a departure from the earlier practice when only names used to be released.
Addressing the gathering of lawyers at Delhi’s Tis Hazari court complex on Monday, Rijiju also refuted media reports about the government wanting to have its representatives in the Supreme Court collegium.
“We do not want to fight but we must keep talking to each other. It is harmful when credibility of any institution is sought to be damaged through these false news items...Robust and independent judiciary is a must for strengthening democracy in India. Democracy cannot be a success if the judiciary is weakened,” emphasised the minister.
The Union law ministry on January 6 wrote to CJI Chandrachud, asserting the need to have a search-cum-evaluation committee (SEC) for bringing in more transparency and objectivity in the process of judicial appointments through the collegium system.
The Centre underlined that the government is an “important stakeholder in the process of appointment of judges in the Supreme Court and high courts” and, therefore, its views should also find a place in preparation of the names eligible for being appointed as judges of constitutional courts.
According to people aware of the matter, the letter stated that a representative of the Union government should be a member of the SEC for appointment of judges in the Supreme Court and chief justices of high courts. The SEC for appointment of judges in the high courts should also have a nominee of the state government, according to the letter.
The letter, however, did not ask for government representatives in the collegium itself, as suggested by some media reports that Rijiju denied in his address on Monday.
