The new Minister of State (Law) has moved 18 Bills, and why the Indian judiciary should take note

The (re)appointment of Ravi Shankar Prasad as Law Minister is not the only significant change to come out of recent Cabinet expansion. Another appointment is that of P.P. Chaudhary as Minister of State for Law & Justice. And it is this appointment in particular, that may be of significance for those in the country’s higher judiciary..The senior counsel from Jodhpur is serving his first term as an MP from Pali constituency in Rajasthan. As per data catalogued by PRS India, his first term at the lower house has been marked by,.98% attendanceParticipation in 358 debates394 questions18 Private Member Bills.It is this last figure, that of eighteen Bills moved over two years, that is the most interesting. All but one of these Bills sought to amend the Indian Constitution, and more than one deals with the Indian judiciary. More specifically, some of these Bills dive right into the heart of the ongoing tussle between the Executive and the Judiciary..Take the appointment of judges; it would appear that the Centre is still smarting at the rejection of the NJAC, and there is still no clarity on the exact procedure to be adopted for appointments..In February this year, Chaudhary sought an amendment to the Constitution. More specifically the addition and definition of the term “consultation” in Article 366 of the Constitution..One of the stated goals of this Bill [pdf] was to change the manner in which judges were appointed. The Statement of Objects and Reasons reads,.“The judicial pronouncements with regards to article 124 made the recommendations on the President binding, which is not in keeping with the constitutional scheme. Similar judicial pronouncements can alter the meaning of other articles of the Constitution, risking the constitutional fabric and framework of the nation….. the proposed Bill seeks to restore the Constitutional scheme as established by the text of the constitution and not by judicial usurpation of constitutional amendment, while also defining the key term of “consultation” within the Constitution, removing ambiguity while subsequently eliminating substantial question of law regarding the term.”.In March last year, Chaudhary moved Bill Nos. 59 & 60 of 2015 which seek to amend Article 124. More specifically, the Bill seeks a ban on post-retirement appointments for the higher judiciary..The Objects and Reasons state:.“It is presumed that reappointment of Judges, after cessation of office would have effect of undermining the independence and fairness of judiciary.”.The second Bill (No. 60 of 2015) deals with High Court judges and seeks the insertion of Article 220A which would place a similar embargo..Towards the end of last year, Chaudhary also moved Bill No. 317 of 2015 to insert Article 123A into the Constitution..What does this Article state?.“”123A. None of the articles viz. 124, 127, 128, 217, 222, 224A and 231, as amended, and new articles 124A, 124B and 124C, as inserted, by the Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 shall be deemed to be void, or ever to have become void, on the ground that the said articles are inconsistent with, or taken away, the independence of judiciary, and, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, each of the said article shall, subject to power of Parliament to omit or amend them, continue in force and shall be deemed always to be in force from the 13th day of April, 2015”.Clearly, Chaudhary was trying to pave way for the NJAC. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons in the Bill, the MP writes,.“Introduction of transparency in appointment of judges would only go to strengthen the independence of democracy and would be a positive step to further reinforce the trust and faith of people in the judicial set up.”.But this is not all the Supreme Court, and the High Court, should take note off. Chaudhary has also sought to increase the retirement age of apex court judges to seventy (Bill No. 219 of 2015) and to sixty-five for High Court judges (Bill No. 220 of 2015).Then there are some Bills which, well, are not connected with the judiciary per se but certainly give some indication of his convictions. For instance in July last year, Chaudhary sought to make voting a fundamental duty so as to “decrease the risk of political stability”. Another Bill seeks to conduct State and Central elections at the same time, something which PM Modi had referred to in the recent interview he gave to Arnab Goswami..So what does this mean for the Indian judiciary? Well for one, you now have a Law MoS who clearly believes that the NJAC was the way forward. He also believes that post-retirement appointments are a strict no-no; while at the same time recognises the fact that retirement ages need to increase..All in all, there are some interesting times ahead..Image taken from here.