Despite the striking down of NJAC, the Centre is in no mood to concede to the judiciary. The Centre will defend the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), which the Supreme Court had sent back after rejecting a number of the Centre’s proposals..According to Times of India, government has now referred the MoP to Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi and asked him to prepare a point-by-point rebuttal on why the collegium’s rejection is not acceptable..Last week, the Chief Justice of India, T S Thakur had sent back the MoP to the Centre, opposing a number of proposals made by the Centre including the government’s right to reject any recommendation made by the Collegium on the grounds of ‘national interest’. The Collegium had also rejected another proposal regarding involvement of the Attorney General in suggesting candidates..The Centre had prepared this new MoP based on an order by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court which had struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission. The Bench had then invited suggestions from the public to improve the working of the Collegium system. Subsequently, it had left it to the Centre to amend the MoP while giving some broad suggestions..The Centre’s tiff with the Supreme Court on preparation of the MoP, however, seems bizarre given the fact that it is only implementing a judgment of the Supreme Court, a mere administrative task to give effect to the Supreme Court judgment..It is doubtful whether the Executive has the authority to rebut the mandate of the judiciary in such a factual scenario.
Despite the striking down of NJAC, the Centre is in no mood to concede to the judiciary. The Centre will defend the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), which the Supreme Court had sent back after rejecting a number of the Centre’s proposals..According to Times of India, government has now referred the MoP to Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi and asked him to prepare a point-by-point rebuttal on why the collegium’s rejection is not acceptable..Last week, the Chief Justice of India, T S Thakur had sent back the MoP to the Centre, opposing a number of proposals made by the Centre including the government’s right to reject any recommendation made by the Collegium on the grounds of ‘national interest’. The Collegium had also rejected another proposal regarding involvement of the Attorney General in suggesting candidates..The Centre had prepared this new MoP based on an order by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court which had struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission. The Bench had then invited suggestions from the public to improve the working of the Collegium system. Subsequently, it had left it to the Centre to amend the MoP while giving some broad suggestions..The Centre’s tiff with the Supreme Court on preparation of the MoP, however, seems bizarre given the fact that it is only implementing a judgment of the Supreme Court, a mere administrative task to give effect to the Supreme Court judgment..It is doubtful whether the Executive has the authority to rebut the mandate of the judiciary in such a factual scenario.