Ravi Shankar Prasad says there is 'need for transparency' in appointment of judges
Ravi Shankar Prasad on Saturday said there was 'need for transparency' in the appointment of judges and the 'autonomy of the judiciary should be respected'.
New Delhi: Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad on Saturday said that there was "need for transparency" in the appointment of judges and the "autonomy of the judiciary should be respected".
Replying to questions at the day-long India TV Conclave on 'Four years of Modi government', Prasad said that there was unanimity among political parties on the National Judicial Accountability Commission (NJAC) Bill but it was struck down by the top court.
"The Supreme Court Collegium in its verdicts in 1993, 1998 and 2015 had admitted that the Centre had the right to review the decisions taken by the Collegium, and the present government was only exercising that right," he said.
Without naming Justice CS Karnan of Calcutta High Court, who was jailed for six months by the Supreme Court for contempt, he said: "When we went through the file of that judge, it was written that he was an appointee of the Collegium...It was written on the file that he had a good knowledge of various laws. Naturally, that judge had no knowledge about contempt. So, somewhere or other, there is need for improvement in judiciary," he said.
He also pointed out that apart from the stay on judges' appointment in 2014 and 2015 due to NJAC issue, 126 judges were appointed in 2016 and 117 judges in 2017, and appointment of more is in the pipeline.
As he said "Transparency in judiciary is our commitment", Prasad, asked if it was his view that there was no transparency in judiciary now, replied: "I didn't say this. There is need for improvement, and that is the directive from the judiciary itself."
He again reiterated that the government's sending back the file relating to the appointment of Uttarakhand Chief Justice KM Joseph "has nothing to do with the verdict given by Justice Joseph striking down President's rule in the state".
On the unprecedented press conference by four sitting Supreme Court judges, he said: "I would not say anything on this. I have full faith in the farsightedness of the apex court judges in ironing out their differences."
He however hit out at Congress President Rahul Gandhi for raising the judges issue at his rallies in Chhattisgarh.
"Despite being defeated at the hands of the people, Rahul Gandhi cannot run this country through the corridors of the court by using a sponsored case. The nation will be run by only those who have got the blessings of the people through the vote. Rahul Gandhi raised judge BH Loya's death case in his rallies, but there is no logic behind this.
"It has been a tradition not to drag the judiciary into politics in our democracy. In most of his speeches, Rahul is raising the issue of 'boycott by judges'. What does he want to convey?" he asked.
The law minister said: "It is a matter of pride for me that our Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Rajnath Singh, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley and External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, all fought for the rights of press, citizens and judiciary during the emergency.
"Who superseded Justice Shelat, Justice Grover and Justice Hegde? Why did Justice HR Khanna say during the Emergency that there could be no compromise on the issue of liberty of citizens?" he asked.
On the Karnataka controversy, the Law Minister reminded that then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee was given 15-20 days time to prove his majority by the then President SD Sharma, VP Singh was given one month time to prove majority by then President R Venkataraman and PV Narasimha Rao was also given one month time to prove majority.
He alleged that Congress MLAs in Karnataka "were locked up in a resort" because the leadership did not trust them.
The 'Colonial Police Act 1861' is ineffective, outdated, cumbersome and has completely failed to secure rule of law, says petitioner advocate Ashwini Upadhyay
Watch: White House official Jen Psaki shuts down reporter who asked about Biden's stand on abortion rights
The US president had condemned the Supreme Court decision not to consider a Texas law that in effect bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy
The president took particular aim at a provision of the bill that allows members of the public to sue doctors who perform abortions or anyone facilitating the procedure