New Delhi [India], September 23 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the Centre’s selective implementation of Collegium recommendations, with Justice Dipankar Datta observing that the claim that “judges appoint judges” is a “myth”.
Justice Datta said judicial appointments are not made solely by judges but follow a detailed consultative process involving the Executive, intelligence agencies and, ultimately, the President.
His remarks came while rejecting the Centre’s argument that the exclusion of the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel for Election Commissioners could be justified by drawing a parallel with the Collegium system.
Justice Datta said the Executive’s selective approval of Collegium recommendations erodes the sanctity of the process, adding that the judiciary has often chosen to proceed with partial clearances to avoid a confrontation that could trigger a constitutional crisis.
He questioned how long such selective implementation could be allowed to continue and said the situation had put the constitutional vision of an independent judiciary under “serious strain”.
“The oft-repeated phrase that ‘judges appoint judges’ is a myth, which people have been fed by vested interests through motivated narratives, often drawing sustenance from certain controversial decisions taken in this century in relation to the appointment of judges,” said Justice Datta.
“A sweeping generalisation that the Collegium acts as a law unto itself overlooks the detailed consultative process envisaged under the Constitution and the intrinsic role of the executive, both at the Centre and in the States, as well as intelligence and other agencies in the appointment process, including vetting of credentials, and the fact that every appointment bears the imprimatur of the President,” he said.
The observations came in a split verdict on the Centre’s application to refer challenges to the 2023 Election Commissioners’ appointment law to a larger bench. While Justice Datta rejected the plea, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that the case involved substantial questions of law warranting consideration by a larger Bench. (ANI)
Related reading
