<p>The Centre on Monday told the Supreme Court that the collegium system of appointment of judges cannot be revived even if the apex court quashed the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act (NJAC).<br /><br />Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi submitted before a five-judge Constitution bench presided over by Justice J S Khehar that Parliament would have to frame another legislation to deal with the appointment of judges in the higher judiciary in case the constitutional amendment and the NJAC were held as bad in law.</p>.<p> “Even if it (NJAC) is quashed, what is dead, cannot be revived. You cannot go back to the old system. There is no question of automatic revival of the old system and the Parliament will sit again to re-legislate,” he said, while arguing for referring the matter relating to challeges to the NJAC Act to a larger bench of nine or 11 judges.<br /><br />“The original Article 124 has now disappeared from the Constitution. It is dead, buried and gone forever. It cannot be resurrected. It won’t come to life even after this bench quashes the amendment and holds that the NJAC is unconstitutional,” he said.<br /><br />According to the Constitutional amendment, the appointment of judges in the High Courts and the Supreme Court is to be done on a recommendation by the NJAC.<br /><br />Earlier, the SC interpreted Article 124 putting in place a collegium headed by the CJI to appoint judges.<br /><br />The top law officer said , “In all proprietary, this case must be decided by a bench of nine or 11 judges since all such cases were decided by a bench of nine judges. Let there be an authoritative pronouncement by a proper bench.<br /><br />He also pointed out that even the petitioners, who have challenged the validity of the NJAC, criticised the working of collegium, and hence it was time that the system should change to reinforce checks and balances in matters of judges’ appointments.<br /><br />The bench, also comprising Justices J Chelameswar, Madan B Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Adarsh K Goel, said the court would decide the plea of reference to larger bench before going into merit of the new law.<br /><br /></p>
<p>The Centre on Monday told the Supreme Court that the collegium system of appointment of judges cannot be revived even if the apex court quashed the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act (NJAC).<br /><br />Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi submitted before a five-judge Constitution bench presided over by Justice J S Khehar that Parliament would have to frame another legislation to deal with the appointment of judges in the higher judiciary in case the constitutional amendment and the NJAC were held as bad in law.</p>.<p> “Even if it (NJAC) is quashed, what is dead, cannot be revived. You cannot go back to the old system. There is no question of automatic revival of the old system and the Parliament will sit again to re-legislate,” he said, while arguing for referring the matter relating to challeges to the NJAC Act to a larger bench of nine or 11 judges.<br /><br />“The original Article 124 has now disappeared from the Constitution. It is dead, buried and gone forever. It cannot be resurrected. It won’t come to life even after this bench quashes the amendment and holds that the NJAC is unconstitutional,” he said.<br /><br />According to the Constitutional amendment, the appointment of judges in the High Courts and the Supreme Court is to be done on a recommendation by the NJAC.<br /><br />Earlier, the SC interpreted Article 124 putting in place a collegium headed by the CJI to appoint judges.<br /><br />The top law officer said , “In all proprietary, this case must be decided by a bench of nine or 11 judges since all such cases were decided by a bench of nine judges. Let there be an authoritative pronouncement by a proper bench.<br /><br />He also pointed out that even the petitioners, who have challenged the validity of the NJAC, criticised the working of collegium, and hence it was time that the system should change to reinforce checks and balances in matters of judges’ appointments.<br /><br />The bench, also comprising Justices J Chelameswar, Madan B Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Adarsh K Goel, said the court would decide the plea of reference to larger bench before going into merit of the new law.<br /><br /></p>
