A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will deliver its verdict today on the crucial issue of whether the political class, through the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), should be given an equal role in the appointment of judges, including the Chief Justice of India.
Advertisement
The court will have the option of either striking down the pertinent constitutional amendment and the NJAC or to uphold it in entirely, or alternatively “read down” a few provisions subject to the Bench’s interpretation.
In the new system notified in April, judges are chosen by the National Judicial Appointments Commission – a team of six members that includes the Chief Justice of India, the two most senior judges of the Supreme Court, two eminent persons, and the Law Minister.
Under the NJAC, appointments cannot be made simply by a majority and no proposal can go through if any two members object.
The petitioners and others had contended that constitutional amendment paving way for the NJAC Act, 2014, got affected only on December 31, 2014 after President Pranab Mukherjee gave his assent to it following more than two-third of the state assemblies ratifying it.
Ottawa County Circuit Court Judge Edward Post was appointed to a fourth two-year term and Holland District Court Judge Bradley Knoll will be the chief judge for the three courthouses of the Ottawa County District Court.
The Missouri Supreme Court has established a committee of lawyers and judges that will conduct a multi-year study racial and ethnic fairness in the state’s judicial system.
The NJAC would be chaired by the Chief Justice of India as in the earlier collegium system. On the contrary, if NJAC is upheld then curtains will be down for the 22-year-old procedure of judges appointing judges and a new system will be put in place.
Advertisement
The verdict on the challenge to the validity of both acts was reserved on July 15 after the five-judge bench heard arguments over 28 hearings over three months. He had added that Constitution never envisaged primacy of the CJI in appointing judges and that the Supreme Court wrongly assumed this power.
