Collegium system of judges appointment to be revisited

With the Centre endorsing the plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment, which paved the way for the collegium system of judicial appointments, the Supreme Court has asked the Registry to post before Chief Justice of India S.H. The Suraz India Trust, in its petition filed in 2010, sought reconsideration of the proposition of law settled in the judgment rendered in the case of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association and others vs the Union of India and others in 1993, whereby the Supreme Court declared the primacy of the collegium in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. Ganguly referred to a note in which he said: “The 1993 decision needs to be reconsidered as the procedure adopted for appointment of judges therein is unworkable under the democratic set-up of this country and is contrary to constitutional foundation of democracy, separation of powers and checks and balances.” Mr. Ganguly said: “The supremacy of the Chief Justice as interpreted in the 1993 judgment has come to be perceived as encouraging lack of accountability in the entire system. The present system has resulted in an anomaly in as much as the executive no longer has to share any responsibility in filling up vacancies, the entire responsibility being that of the collegium of the Supreme Court.” Pointing out the number of vacancies in the higher judiciary, Mr. Ganguly said: “The 1993 decision was a result of the perception of the judiciary that it required to be insulated from the interference from the executive. working of the system shows that independence can be secured through other measures.” He said: “Although the word ‘consultation' appears twice in Article 124, once in relation to the Chief Justice and secondly in relation to other judges, it is concluded that the word in its first use means primacy, but in its second form does not; suggesting that the opinion of the Chief Justice symbolises the views of the entire judiciary, solely through the CJI, could not be the import of Article 124 or 217.