Judiciary should not transgress into legislature’s domain: MPs | india news | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Mar 21, 2018-Wednesday
New Delhi
  • Humidity
  • Wind

Judiciary should not transgress into legislature’s domain: MPs

Several members in the Lower House stressed on the supremacy of Parliament over judiciary.

india Updated: Jan 04, 2018 20:16 IST
A scene in the Lok Sabha in New Delhi on Thursday.
A scene in the Lok Sabha in New Delhi on Thursday. (PTI Photo)

Members in the Lok Sabha, cutting across party line, on Thursday said that judiciary should refrain from “framing” laws and getting into the domain of the legislature.

While supporting the high court and the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Amendment Bill, which aims at hiking the salaries of judges in the Supreme Court and the high courts, several members stressed on the supremacy of Parliament over judiciary.

Kalyan Banerjee (TMC) demanded that MPs across the political spectrum should approach the Supreme Court and say that “it is not your function” to legislate.

“Legislation should be left to Parliament... Day by day the conflict is emerging and unless it is stopped by the judiciary, in 10-15 years, there will be a direct conflict between judiciary and Parliament,” Banerjee said.

Deputy Speaker M Thambidurai, who was in the Chair, too said the function of judiciary is to interpret the law. “They can’t legislate the law”.

Echoing Banerjee’s views, P Ravindra Babu (TDP) said that Parliament is supreme because “we represent the collective mandate of people.”

Babu said the constitutional mandate was vested on Parliament and hence “we (Parliamentarians) should prevail over Supreme Court”.

He demanded an ‘All India Judicial Service’ for recruitment of judges so that they come under the civil services rules.

“Why should judges enjoy immunity,” he asked and suggested that there should be accountability of judges and for wrong judgments passed, they should be punished.

Several members also pitched for live telecast of proceedings within the high courts and the Supreme Court.

“If Parliament proceedings are telecast live, then why not have live telecast of court proceedings,” Banerjee said, adding that if this happens, then people can witness the behaviour of judges.

Tathagata Satpathy (BJD) suggested that court cases in which the verdict has already been passed should be brought within the purview of Right To Information (RTI).

Terming the Contempt of Court provision as “abominable”, he said it should be removed from the statute.

Vinayak Raut (Shiv Sena) too asserted that between the judiciary and Parliament, “unquestionably Parliament and legislative assemblies are above the judiciary.”

Banerjee also sought to know from Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad whether the administrative side of Supreme Court and High Court were liable to give explanation to Parliament.

“Because the budget of the judiciary is sanctioned by Parliament, they owe an explanation to Parliament,” he said.