Supreme Court refuses sending pleas against NJAC to larger bench

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today rejected Government's plea that the petitions challenging the NJAC Act be either referred to a bench of nine or more judges as they include common issues earlier dealt in the 1993 and 1998 Judges cases verdicts.

The five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice J S Khehar referred to the term "consultation" used in the constitutional provision, which deal with the appointment of district judges.

The term "consultation" under Article 233 creates a situation where the view, arrived at by the judiciary following the consultation process with the executive, is binding on the Governor.

The bench took a cue from it and trashed the plea of Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi that the verdicts in the 1993 and 1998 Judges cases interpreted term "consultation" in such a manner that made the view of judiciary final and obligatory on the executive in the appointment of judges in HCs and the apex court.

It referred to the relevant portion of response of B R Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly.

"B R Ambedkar therefore, very clearly concluded the issue by expressing, that it would be improper to leave the appointments of Judges to the Supreme Court, to be made by the President - the executive (i.e., on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister). In the words of Ambedkar, it would be dangerous to leave such appointments in the hands of the executive of the day, without any kind of reservation and limitation.

"We are therefore satisfied, that the word 'consultation' expressed in Articles 124 and 217, was contemplated by the Constituent Assembly, to curtail the free will of the executive. If that was the true intent, the word 'consultation' could never be assigned its ordinary dictionary meaning," it said while refusing to refer the pleas to larger bench.