Continuing his arguments for the third day, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi argued on the requirement of greater transparency in the system..“While you are looking at the good, you cannot overlook the bad”, he stated, in reference to the need of checks and balances, also saying that “one bad fish spoils everything” in the context of inferior appointments in the judiciary..He then proceeded to discuss the notion of Independence of the Judiciary..“There are functional and institutional aspects of the independence of the judiciary. This consists of many factors, such as involvement in appointments, administrative issues etc. The system of checks and balances, separation of powers and independence of the judiciary are all basic features of the Constitution. There needs to be co-existence of checks and balances in the framework of the independence of the judiciary.”.Rohatgi argued that the system of judicial appointments is isolated from other spheres of life. “Where is the interaction with other spheres?” he said, stating that the presence of two eminent persons was to ensure that there is transparency and accountability in judicial appointments..Regarding Justice Verma’s skepticism of his own judgment in the Second Judges case, Rohatgi submitted that Justice Verma envisioned the process of judicial appointments to be a participatory and consultative process..He furthered this argument by talking about how “the content of the judgments and the discussions in the Second and Third judges’ case seem to be inconsistent with the conclusions and decision of the judgments.” He also stated that the primacy requirement was read in to avoid a “Constitutional stalemate”..Rohatgi will resume his arguments tomorrow and will focus on the NJAC Act, particularly the role and presence of eminent persons in the NJAC.
Continuing his arguments for the third day, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi argued on the requirement of greater transparency in the system..“While you are looking at the good, you cannot overlook the bad”, he stated, in reference to the need of checks and balances, also saying that “one bad fish spoils everything” in the context of inferior appointments in the judiciary..He then proceeded to discuss the notion of Independence of the Judiciary..“There are functional and institutional aspects of the independence of the judiciary. This consists of many factors, such as involvement in appointments, administrative issues etc. The system of checks and balances, separation of powers and independence of the judiciary are all basic features of the Constitution. There needs to be co-existence of checks and balances in the framework of the independence of the judiciary.”.Rohatgi argued that the system of judicial appointments is isolated from other spheres of life. “Where is the interaction with other spheres?” he said, stating that the presence of two eminent persons was to ensure that there is transparency and accountability in judicial appointments..Regarding Justice Verma’s skepticism of his own judgment in the Second Judges case, Rohatgi submitted that Justice Verma envisioned the process of judicial appointments to be a participatory and consultative process..He furthered this argument by talking about how “the content of the judgments and the discussions in the Second and Third judges’ case seem to be inconsistent with the conclusions and decision of the judgments.” He also stated that the primacy requirement was read in to avoid a “Constitutional stalemate”..Rohatgi will resume his arguments tomorrow and will focus on the NJAC Act, particularly the role and presence of eminent persons in the NJAC.
