“There is so much rightful anger against the Collegium system”, Senior Advocate Anil B Divan

The Bar Association of India (BAI) organised a discussion yesterday on the 64th report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee (Standing Committee) on the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2013 (Bill) at the Indian Law Institute (ILI)..Senior Lawyers Anil B Divan, TR Andhyarujina, KN Bhat and Pinky Anand participated in the discussion. The participants sought a Constitutional amendment to constitute the JAC as opposed to the constitution of JAC through a separate law. They also disapproved of the fact that the text of the Bill after the Standing Committee’s report had not been made publicly available, hindering meaningful discussion..BAI President and Senior Advocate Anil B Divan criticised the manner in which the executive was hurrying the Bill. Terming it “unfortunate”, he said that,.“There is so much anger, rightful anger against the Collegium system and the Executive is trying to take advantage of it and is pushing the JAC Bill.”.He was also critical of the fact that the “structure” of the Bill was not disclosed after the Standing Committee had submitted its report..Senior Counsel TR Andhyarujina pointed out that the resentment against Collegium system was not confined to the national capital. Citing the opposition of the Madras Bar to the recommendations made by the Collegium and the Public Interest Litigation filed against it, he also said that the Madras High Court witnessed the,.“Bizarre spectacle of one judge coming in open court denouncing the appointments.”.He also referred to the controversy surrounding the letter written by Gujarat High Court Chief Justice Bhattacharya to former Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir alleging that his opposition to the elevation of Justice Kabir’s sister to the Calcutta High Court was the real reason for overlooking him for Supreme Court..Speaking about alternatives to the Collegium system, he said that the JAC had not worked well in other countries barring England. However, as the best available alternative, he opined that the JAC should be a permanent body as opposed to an ad hoc one envisaged in the Bill. Andhyarujina was also critical of the fact that no there was no criterion laid down in the Bill setting out qualifications for appointment as judge..Hinting at the prospect of the Bill being delayed by at least a year and taking into account the fact that 11 judges of the Supreme Court would be retiring this year, he called for a dialogue between the senior members of the Bar and the Chief Justice of India to ensure greater transparency in the appointments to the Supreme Court..Earlier, the Supreme Court Bar Association had also held a similar discussion to ascertain the views of the members of the Bar across Delhi on the proposed JAC..With nearly one third of the Supreme Court judges retiring this year and the prospect of JAC being delayed, it would be interesting to see whether the Bar would initiate a discussion with the Bench seeking greater transparency in appointments to the Apex Court..Image courtesy.Anil B Divan.TR Andhyarujina