JOIN USChief Justice of India (CJI) Justice H L Dattu has declined to be part of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) till the Supreme Court's Constitution bench decides on a batch of petitions challenging its validity.
The latest development could put a spoke in the wheel of the government to put in place the six-member NJAC, notified on April 13.
The commission is headed by the CJI and comprises two senior most judges, Union Law Minister and two eminent persons. The government was eager for a meeting of a high-level selection panel comprising the prime minister, CJI and the leader of the single largest political party in the Lok Sabha to nominate two eminent persons.
However, in a letter to Prime Minister, Justice Dattu wrote on April 25: “In response to the call from your office to attend the meeting to select two eminent persons, I have to say that it is neither appropriate nor desirable to attend the meeting or be part of the NJAC till the SC decides its validity.”
Though the five-judge Constitution bench had earlier refused to restrain the government from setting up the NJAC, the CJI’s letter has in a way created a piquant situation for the government. The apex court had allowed the Centre to go ahead with the NJAC but with limited purpose of granting extension of additional judges of the high courts, whose tenure was coming to end during the pendency.
As the bench headed by Justice J S Khehar resumed hearing on the PILs, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi produced before the court the letter shot off by the CJI. He urged the court to use its judicial power to direct the CJI to be part of the NJAC in his administrative capacity.
In view of the new scenario, the bench, comprising Justices J Chelameswar, Madan B Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Adarsh Kumar Goel asked the senior counsel, representing different sides to present their views as to how the court should proceed with the matter.
Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani urged the court to stay the NJAC, while senior advocate Harish Salve opposed his argument, saying any stay would send a wrong message because the NJAC is now a Constitutional reality. The bench later announced that it would hear the matter on merit.