#NJAC Conundrum; Re-Cap of Arguments and Counter Arguments with Written Submissions

Senior Advocate Fali S. Nariman appearing for Supreme Court Advocates on Record AssociationDefending Judicial independence: Mr. Nariman had contended that the Constitution­ framers had stressed on insulating the superior judiciary ­ the Supreme Court and high courts ­ from legislative and executive control. He called the present collegium system as 'opaque' and added, "The framers of the Constitution had never intended to give the power of appointment of judges to the superior judiciary to the executive." "National Judicial Appointments Commission is complete anathema to judicial independence as the proposal on judges' appointments given by the CJI and two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court could be rejected even by two eminent persons who could come together to veto it," he added. As Mr. Jethmalani stoutly defended the collegium system, the Supreme Court had opined in July that the new National Judicial Appointments Commission Act which regulates the process of appointment of judges should not be seen as "good or bad" and rather tested on the proposition that whether it conforms to the basic structure of the Constitution or not. NJAC is a too serious issue and can't left to 'hit and trial' or 'God' The Bench was hearing AG Mukul Rohatgi's submissions who said that the National Judicial Appointment Commission for appointments to higher judiciary had a component of a "hit and trial" experiment for finding the best people for the posts.