Back to square one? Supreme Court Collegium rejects’national security’, permanent secretariat clauses in MoP

Just when we thought the Executive and the Judiciary had reached a ceasefire in the war over the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), the Supreme Court collegium, it seems, has fired another salvo..Indian Express reports that in its final meeting on March 10, the collegium headed by Chief Justice of India JS Khehar unanimously rejected the recommendation of the Centre that they should have the power to reject any name for appointment as a judge of the high court for reasons of “national security”..The same report states that the final views of the collegium were conveyed to the Centre through a letter written by CJI Khehar on March 13..Last week, Times of India reported that the MoP had been finalised. As per the report, the collegium had agreed to the ‘national security clause’, on the condition that specific reasons are recorded by the Centre for invoking the said clause during appointment of judges..The Express story quotes a member of the collegium as saying,.“If there is sufficient material that the government provides to the collegium to substantiate its view that the appointment of a candidate could compromise national security, I don’t think any collegium will ever dismiss such sensitive feedback. .But the government can’t be given a virtual veto to reject any name by merely invoking national security. This would lead to politicisation of the entire appointment process, something that the framers of the Constitution didn’t want.”.And the national security clause is not the only one the collegium is reported to have rejected..The other contentious clause over which the two arms of governance have failed to see eye to eye is the setting up of a permanent secretariat for “vetting and screening” appointments to the higher judiciary..The collegium, it is reported, also seems to have rejected the idea of having a three-member committee of non-collegium members to investigate complaints against judges of the high courts. In light of recent events surrounding a certain sitting judge, this provision might have come in handy..Moreover, the collegium has insisted that if any of its recommendations for appointment of high court judges are rejected, they should have the power to reiterate the same. The Centre would then have no option but to accept the recommendation, provided all members of the collegium agree to stick with their view, in writing..As per the December 16 order of the Supreme Court, the Centre was required to amend the existing MoP in consultation with the CJI, who in turn, was required to consult the collegium in this regard. The Court had also given a series of broad suggestions for the government to consider while amending the MoP..Despite all these, the Centre and the Supreme Court were not able to reach a consensus regarding the MoP, with the apex court opposing a number of proposals made by the Centre..Now, despite claims that the MoP would be finalised soon, it appears that the collegium has thrown a spanner in the works. And with the collegium giving precious little leeway in the MoP discussion, the fate of judicial appointments hangs in the balance.