NJAC verdict: Netas, please understand, freedom of judiciary is non-negotiable

Let’s get to the point straightaway. The independence of the judiciary is non-negotiable. Political forces should in no way get involved in the process of appointing judges. The collegium system is flawed and it needs drastic re-imagining, but the answer is not a measure that could lead to the politicisation of the judiciary. Once you allow the proverbial camel a foothold in the tent, you never know what you are going to end up with. The Supreme Court bench which struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) and revived the old collegium system has done a great service to the country by keeping the camel out of the tent. It does not matter it was cleared unanimously by the Parliament and backed by 20 states. The court’s job is to interpret the law. It found the Commission not acceptable under the Constitutional scheme of things. The matter should rest here. [caption id=“attachment_2459146” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Supreme Court of India. AFP[/caption] Justice JS Khehar, who headed the five-member Constitution Bench, cited senior BJP leader LK Advani’s views expressed in an interview to The Indian Express to argue against the interference of the executive in judicial matters. Advani had expressed apprehension that an Emergency-like situation could still develop in the country because the media, despite the power it wields, had no real commitment to democracy and civil society is still maturing in the country. The forces, he told The Indian Express, which could destroy democracy were powerful than ever before and a condition like this made the judiciary more responsible than any other institution in protecting rights. Imagine a situation where one political party with a regressive social and cultural agenda gains absolute majority in Parliament and goes about implementing its ideas by creating Acts. These Acts may come into conflict with the fundamental rights of the citizens or may be designed to suppress all rights in the first place. The only option for citizens in such cases is the judiciary, which is still considered largely independent and fair. If the process of the appointment of judges is in some way influenced by the executive, the perception of fairness stands tarnished. It could lead to the travesty of justice. Good democracies play by the rules and guidelines laid down by their respective Constitutions, not by the whims of the political dispensation in power. Justice Madan B Lokur raised the point saying that if the political executive has strong views on the sexual orientation of the people, it might exert influence and disallow gays from being judges. To extrapolate from that point a bit, if it manages that, then the doors of the judiciary would be shut for gays. Coming back to the core point, the judiciary has a much bigger role than to pander to the opinions of the so-called majority. It has played a salutary role in protecting individual and community rights through Public Interest Litigations (PILs) since the aftermath of Emergency. Its judgments have rubbed the executive the wrong way most of the time. People criticising the SC verdict are forgetting that the executive is a party to many of the critical cases involving human rights. For the sake of fairness in such cases, it should keep its hands off appointing judges. It’s good that the bench has acknowledged the weaknesses in the collegium system and accepted that it needs correction. If only our political parties thought that way about themselves!