The Supreme Court of India is privy to another case in which the judiciary is at loggerheads with the executive..The Gujarat government has moved the Supreme Court challenging a decision of the Gujarat High Court. In that decision, it was held that the appointment procedure followed by the Government for appointing the President of the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal and members of the Board of nominees is unconstitutional..Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the state government today, while Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave represented the Gujarat Co-operative Bar Association..The dispute has its origin in 2011, when the Gujarat Co-operative Bar Association moved the High Court challenging the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and the Rules made thereunder with respect to the appointment of members of the State Co-operative Tribunal and members of Board of Nominees. They had contended that the Act confers excessive power upon the State in the appointment process. It was also their contention that the process of appointment does not comply with the provisions of Part IV, Chapter 6 of the Constitution..The High Court had initially dismissed the petition, but overturned its judgment in a review petition. In its judgment in the review petition, the High Court had held that:.(1) The procedure for appointment of the President and members of Board of Nominees is not in accordance with the principle of meaningful consultation and,.(2) Section 96 and 97 of the Act, which relate to the adjudication of disputes by the Registrar or his nominees, are valid only if the nominees so appointed are having the experience of judicial officer of not less than 5 years. .The Court, thereby, rendered Rule 40A(c) the Co-operative Societies Rules which allows appointment of persons with just a law degree invalid..Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi today argued before the Court that the appointment process followed by the State is in consonance with the “consultation” envisaged by the Act..“The Chief Justice sends 20 or 30 names out of which we select two candidates and sends it back to the Chief Justice for his approval. If he disagrees, we consider other candidates. Now the judgment says that the Chief Justice should send one name for the post of President and one name for judicial member and if we have any reservation with any of the two names, we can discuss the same with the Chief Justice. The interpretation of consultation under A.124 cannot be imported to interpret statutes”, he argued..A Bench comprising Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justices AK Sikri and R Banumathi granted leave in the matter, while refusing to offer any interim relief to the government.
The Supreme Court of India is privy to another case in which the judiciary is at loggerheads with the executive..The Gujarat government has moved the Supreme Court challenging a decision of the Gujarat High Court. In that decision, it was held that the appointment procedure followed by the Government for appointing the President of the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal and members of the Board of nominees is unconstitutional..Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the state government today, while Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave represented the Gujarat Co-operative Bar Association..The dispute has its origin in 2011, when the Gujarat Co-operative Bar Association moved the High Court challenging the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and the Rules made thereunder with respect to the appointment of members of the State Co-operative Tribunal and members of Board of Nominees. They had contended that the Act confers excessive power upon the State in the appointment process. It was also their contention that the process of appointment does not comply with the provisions of Part IV, Chapter 6 of the Constitution..The High Court had initially dismissed the petition, but overturned its judgment in a review petition. In its judgment in the review petition, the High Court had held that:.(1) The procedure for appointment of the President and members of Board of Nominees is not in accordance with the principle of meaningful consultation and,.(2) Section 96 and 97 of the Act, which relate to the adjudication of disputes by the Registrar or his nominees, are valid only if the nominees so appointed are having the experience of judicial officer of not less than 5 years. .The Court, thereby, rendered Rule 40A(c) the Co-operative Societies Rules which allows appointment of persons with just a law degree invalid..Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi today argued before the Court that the appointment process followed by the State is in consonance with the “consultation” envisaged by the Act..“The Chief Justice sends 20 or 30 names out of which we select two candidates and sends it back to the Chief Justice for his approval. If he disagrees, we consider other candidates. Now the judgment says that the Chief Justice should send one name for the post of President and one name for judicial member and if we have any reservation with any of the two names, we can discuss the same with the Chief Justice. The interpretation of consultation under A.124 cannot be imported to interpret statutes”, he argued..A Bench comprising Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justices AK Sikri and R Banumathi granted leave in the matter, while refusing to offer any interim relief to the government.