Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Jan 24: Taking the Government – Judiciary conflict a notch up, the union law minister Kiren Rijiju on Tuesday strongly reacted to the Supreme Court making public the government’s objections to the candidature of some of the candidates recommended by the apex court for appointment as judges.
Rijiju said it was “a matter of grave concern” the Supreme Court’s action because the government’s objections were based on reports from the intelligence agencies who function with grave risks for their lives for the benefit of the country.
His criticism was of the decision of the Supreme Court collegium headed by the Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, publishing on the Supreme Court website the government’s objections to the elevation of three candidates for judge and its own counter.
Amid a tussle with the government, it was an unprecedented move by the Supreme Court to make public the inputs of intelligence agencies – the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and the Intelligence Bureau (IB) – on the government’s objections.
Mr Rijiju said today that he would “react at an appropriate time” but made his views clear. “Putting out secret and sensitive reports of RAW or IB in public domain is a matter of grave concern, to which I will react at an appropriate time. Today is not the appropriate time,” the Law Minister told reporters.
“If the concerned officer who is working for the nation in disguise or secret mode in a very secretive location, he will think twice if tomorrow his report is put out in the public domain, and it will have implications. That is why I will not make any comment,” Mr Rijiju said.
Asked whether he would take it up with the Chief Justice, the minister said: “The Chief Justice and I meet so often. We are always in touch. He is the head of the judiciary, I am the bridge between the government and the judiciary. We have to work together – we can’t work in isolation. It is a contentious issue…let’s leave it for another day.”
On January 19, the Supreme Court Collegium headed by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud had reiterated its decision to appoint five advocates as High Court judges. In at least three cases, it made public both its reasons for reiteration and the government’s objections: a candidate’s sexual orientation and his “foreign-national” partner; an advocate’s critical post on Prime Minister Narendra Modi; another’s views on social media critical of the government.
The five candidates: senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal for appointment as judge of the Delhi High Court; advocate Somsekhar Sundaresan as judge of the Bombay High Court; advocate John Satyan for the Madras High Court; advocates Sakya Sen and Amitesh Banerjee as judges of the Calcutta High Court. The Collegium had reiterated the names to the government earlier this month while rejecting intelligence inputs.
The disclosure led to disquiet in the security establishment as the practice has always been to keep the confidentiality of intelligence agencies who scrutinise prospective candidates for appointments to the higher judiciary — the High Court and Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court deliberated for four days before taking the unprecedented step of uploading the objections on its website, sources said. This is the latest in a bitter clash between the government and the Supreme Court over the appointment of judges.
The government has been pressing for a greater role in the appointment of judges, which has been the domain of the Supreme Court collegium or panel of senior most judges since 1993. The government argues that the legislature is supreme since it represents the will of the people. The Supreme Court has said the collegium system is the “law of the land” which should be “followed to the teeth.”
The back-and-forth between the government and the Supreme Court has also thrown up questions on the constitution and what parts of it can be changed by parliament to rework the system of judges appointing judges.
Mr Rijiju has often talked about the “lack of transparency” in the appointment of judges. Yesterday, he said judges need not contest elections of face public scrutiny. “The people are watching you and judging you. Your judgments, your work process, how you dispense justice… The people can see, and assess… They form opinions,” the Law Minister had said at an event.
Before this, the law minister had shared an interview clip of R S Sodhi, a retired Delhi High Court judge, who said the Supreme Court had “hijacked” the Constitution by deciding to appoint its own judges. “Actually majority of the people have similar sane views,” Rijiju had tweeted Sunday, a day after sharing the video clip of the interview.