“As far I am concerned, I have no desire at all to hear this matter'', Justice Khehar said
Supreme Court. (Photo: PTI/File)
New Delhi: With a section of lawyers raising the question of bias and conflict of interest of judges in the collegium, hearing the batch of appeals relating to the validity of National Judicial Appointments Commission, the Supreme Court on Tuesday made it clear that it would decide who are the judges who can hear the matter before taking up for adjudication the main issue.
A Constitution bench of Justices J.S. Khehar, J. Chelameswar, Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and A.K. Goel told senior counsel Fali Nariman and others that it would first decide the doctrine of bias and conflict of interest issue and lay down a law on the subject.
Soon after the hearing commenced, advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara told the bench that since Justice Khehar was part of the collegium, he could not preside over the bench.
Mr Nariman told the Bench, “a person (Justice Khehar) who is in the reckoning to become the Chief Justice of India or part of the NJAC must not hear this case.”
Justice Khehar said, “As far I am concerned, I have no desire at all to hear this matter. He said the moment his name was decided to head the bench, he wrote to the CJI that he would not be a part of either the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) or the collegium, till the matter is finally heard and decided.
“We should decide who will hear the matter. It is a very vital issue and we cannot keep it pending. We intend to pass an order as to who will hear the matter,” the bench said.
Mr Nariman, appearing on behalf of Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA), suggested that the matter can be heard by the CJI along with two senior-most judges and two other judges of CJI's choice. He also said that he is withdrawing his objection that justice Anil Dave should not hear the case. Justice Khehar is presiding over the bench after Justice Dave recused from the case last week.
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi said that the ideal situation would have been to bring Justice Dave back on the bench as there was no conflict of interest. He said, “Most of the times judges decide same issues in administrative as well as in judicial side.”
The government had on April 13 notified the NJAC Act along with a Constitutional Amendment Act (99th Amendment Act) to give constitutional status to the new body to appoint judges. It was the contention of the petitioners that Parliament did not have the competence to pass the NJAC Bill in August 2014 even before the Constitution was amended to provide for replacing the collegium system.
( Source : dc )
Next Story
