New Delhi: Parliament’s wisdom in choosing one model of judicial appointments over another model is not open to judicial review, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi asserted in the Supreme Court on Monday. Resuming his arguments before a five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Justices J.S. Khehar, J. Chelameswar, Madan Lokur, Kurian Joseph and A.K. Goel, the Attorney General maintained that Parliament was best equipped to assess the needs of the people and the changing times and the wisdom of Parliament is not subject to judicial review. He said Parliament was not bound to give any reason as to why it needed a change of system of appointment of judges.
Rejecting the arguments of senior counsel Fali Nariman and others assailing the National Judicial Appointments Commission law, the A-G said, “There can’t be a debate as to which system is good or bad once Parliament adopts a model if it meets the basic constitutional requirements. If a law or a system becomes unreasonable over a period of time, the legislature in its wisdom can change it in order to make it reasonable.”
Justice Khehar asked the A-G “whether under Article 124, the President exercises judicial, constitutional or executive power.” The A-G said, “The President is only ceremonial head and he is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.” However, he added that there was no bar on the President making consultation or independent enquiries. The A-G asserted that the President was exercising only executive power.
The A-G said under Article 124 as it stood, the framers of the Constitution envisaged a healthy system of consultation between the President and the Chief Justice. There was no primacy of judiciary in the Constitution as primacy or independence of judiciary comes only after appointment of judges. The arguments will continue on Tuesday.
