The Supreme Court told the Central Government that the collegium system is the ‘law of the land which should be followed to the teeth’. The Top Court further added that ‘just because some sections of the society express a view against the collegium system, it will not cease to the law of the land’.
“There are sections in society who do not agree with the laws made by the Parliament. Should the Court stop enforcing such laws on that ground?” said a bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.
“If everyone in society decides which law to follow and which law to not follow, there would be a breakdown,” added Justice Kaul.
Notably, a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S Oka and Vikram Nath was hearing a contempt petition filed by the Advocates Association of Bangalore against the Centre for violating the timeline for judicial appointments.
‘Collegium system must be adhered to’
The SC bench further told the Attorney General and the Solicitor General ‘the Constitution Bench judgements which formulated the collegium system for judges’ appointment must be adhered to’.
The Attorney General for India R Venkataramani highlighted the instance when the Supreme Court collegium itself dropped the reiterated names sent back by the Centre, which, in turn, gave the impression that the reiterations might not be conclusive.
The bench, however, retorted by saying that ‘such isolated instances will not give the government a license to ignore the Constitution Bench judgment’ which clearly states that collegium reiterations are binding.
‘We need to find a way out’
“Attorney you will have to do a little better…we need to find a way out. Why do you think we issued only a notice instead of a contempt notice? We want a solution. How do we sort out these issues? There is some kind of an infinite battle”, Justice Kaul said.
“We expect the Attorney General to play the role of the senior most law officer in advising the Government of the legal position and in ensuring that the legal position is followed. The scheme of the Constitution requires this Court to be the final arbiter of the law. The power to enact the law is with the Parliament, but it is subject to scrutiny by this Court. It is important that the law laid down by this Court is followed or else people would follow the law which they think is correct,” the bench noted.
