#NJAC: 21 top quotes from the 1,030-page judgment

With the NJAC judgment, the jam packed court room 4 today witnessed one of the most important pronouncements in recent history.

The pronouncement of judgment was as eventful as the hearing. Though crowded courtrooms and judgments attracting media scrutiny is not a rarity these days, the issue decided today is one of tremendous importance in a democratic society – that of independence of judiciary.

Justice Khehar by using the microphone for pronouncing the judgment (again hardly done by any of the judges during pronouncement of the other judgments) seemed to be sending a message to the powers that be.

In a judgment filled with complex arguments, and legal reasoning, below are 21 of the most interesting excerpts.

Khehar J. on the plea of the petitioners seeking his recusal

“The decision to remain a member of the reconstituted Bench was mine, and mine alone. The choice that I made, was not of the heart, but that of the head.”

Khehar J. in the majority opinion

(Para 157)

“When the issue is of such significance, as the constitutional position of Judges of the higher judiciary, it would be fatal to depend upon the moral strength of individuals.”

(Para 164)

“When the favour extended is as important as the position of judgeship in the higher judiciary, one would best leave it to individual imagination, to determine the enormity of the reciprocal gratitude and loyalty.”

(Para 183 – On AG’s argument that “eminent persons” would help by providing inputs not available to others in the NJAC)

“Really a submission with all loose ends, and no clear meaning.”

(Para 194 – On the retired judge who tweets)

“Lastly, it has not been possible for us to comprehend, how and why, a Judge who commenced to tweet his views after his retirement, can be considered to be unworthy of elevation.”

(Para 204)

“Could it be, that just like its predecessor, the present political establishment has now appointed its rank favourites? What emerges is, trappings of the spoils system, and nothing else.”

Justice Chelameswar’s dissenting judgment

(Para 1)

“Have we really outgrown the malady of dependence or merely transferred it from the political to judicial hierarchy?”

(Para 30)

“It is said that men in power promote the least of mankind with a fond hope that those who lack any accomplishment would be grateful to their benefactor.”

(Para 102)

“To assume or assert that judiciary alone is concerned with the preservation of liberties and does that job well, is an assumption that is dogmatic, bereft of evidentiary basis and historically disproved.”

(Para 119)

“The records are absolutely beyond the reach of any person including the judges of this Court who are not lucky enough to become the Chief Justice of India.”

Madan B Lokur J. in his majority opinion

(Para 99)

“The meat lies in the caliber of the judges and not their perks.”

(Para 184)

“Denigrating judges is the easiest thing to do – they cannot fight back – and the surest way to ensure that the judiciary loses its independence and the people lose confidence in the judiciary, which is hardly advisable”

(Para 188)

“The collegium cannot be blamed for all the ills in the appointment of judges – the political executive has to share the blame equally if not more, since it mortgaged its constitutional responsibility of maintaining a check on what may be described as the erroneous decisions of the collegium.”

Justice Kurian Joseph on recusal

(Page 887)

“I am of the view that it is the constitutional duty, as reflected in one’s oath, to be transparent and accountable, and hence, a Judge is required to indicate reasons for his recusal from a particular case. This would help to curb the tendency for forum shopping.”

Justice Kurian Joseph in his majority opinion

(page 895 – On why he undid most of what he wrote)

“Entia Non Sunt Multiplicanda Sine Necessitate (Things should not be multiplied without necessity). This is the first thought which came to my mind after reading the judgments authored by my noble brothers Khehar, Chelameswar, Lokur and Goel, JJ., exhaustively dealing with the subject. Though I cannot, in all humility, claim to match the level of such masterpieces, it is a fact that I too had drafted my judgment. However, in view of the principle enunciated above on unnecessary multiplication, I decided to undo major portion of what I have done, also for the reason that the judgment of this Bench should not be accused of Bharati fate (His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and another has always been criticized on that account).”

(Page 909 – Democracy is always on a shaky foundation!)

“If the alignment of tectonic plates on distribution of powers is disturbed, it will quake the Constitution. Once the constitutional structure is shaken, democracy collapses. That is our own painful history of the Emergency.”

(Page 912)

“The Collegium system needs to be improved requiring a ‘glasnost’ and a ‘perestroika’.”

Justice AK Goel in his majority opinion

(para 15.2)

“Even best of the Government was not averse to have more and more powers to carry out their plans and programmes which they believe to be in public interest, but freedom once lost could hardly be regained.”

(Para 17.4)

“The word ‘consultation’ as interpreted and understood meant that the final word on the subject of appointment of Judges was with the CJI. The practice and convention ever since the commencement of the Constitution showed that proposal for appointment was always initiated by the Judiciary and the last word on the subject belonged to the CJI.”

(Para 17.4)

“The contention that earlier situation of Executive interference has now changed also does not justify reconsideration of the earlier view. If the situation has changed, there can be no reason for change of the system which is functioning as per the intention of the Constitution makers when such change will be contrary to basic structure which is not constitutionally permissible.”

(Para 18)

“The earlier decisions in Second and Third Judges’ case have to be taken as binding precedents. Once it is so, it has to be held that primacy of the judiciary in appointment of judges is part of the basic structure. Appointment of judges is part of independence of judiciary.”

Read the entire judgment below.