Hon. Chairman, Sir, I had come with a
prepared speech to support the Bill. But after hearing my learned friend, I am
in utter confusion whether to support the Bill or to oppose the Bill. /
I think that the Government will clarify the position. The hon. Minister will
clarify the position. Then we will make up our mind. As has been rightly pointed out by my
honourable friend, if it //
is to invalidate the judgement of the
Supreme Court, then the law cannot be said to be a good law. The pertinent
question to be discussed here is the benefit of eligibility of additional
quantum ///
of pension to the retired judges at the
age of 80 years and after that.120 The question is whether it is from the
date on which the judge enters into the age of 80 or140 (1) after the completion of the age of 80. That is the only simple
question to be discussed for which the Guwahati High Court had made a
judgement. Against that judgement, a Special Leave Petition was moved by /
the Government of India in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rejected it.
The rejection of the Special Leave Petition means it is subject to correction.
I am also saying, subject to correction, that if the opinion is //
correct, then definitely, this is a bad law. It has to be reconsidered. That is
my first point which I would like to make.
Invalidating240 a law passed and that too, through a
Mandamus by the Supreme Court ///
is being nullified by this Parliament. To
give benefit to the retired judges at the fag-end of their life is not fair. It
is not good enough280 for such a legislation. That has to be
reconsidered.
Sir, (2) I would like to speak about some points about separation of
powers. I am not going into the details of it.
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is
the basic principle by which the doctrine of / Separation of Powers has
been debated since long. The separation of powers was discussed in the
Constituent Assembly but it was not given any constitutional status. There is nowhere
in360
the Constitution of India, an explicit provision to deal // with
the separation of powers, except in Article 50 of the Constitution, that is,
the Directive Principles of State Policy, where the separation of Judiciary
from Executive is explicitly explained.
Sir, I would like to quote a renowned Justice who /// has
said: “Enforcement of rigid concept of separation of powers would420
make modern Government impossible. Strict separation of powers is theoretically
absurdity and practical impossibility.” I feel that this is a pragmatic version
because separation of powers is theoretically an (3) absurdity and a practical impossibility for a modern
Government. I am not going into the details of all these things. The President
of India is the Executive head of India and480 he is also having the legislative powers
when he /
summons the House. That means separation of
powers in a rigid manner is not possible as far as the modern Government is concerned.
That has to be kept in mind. Sir, Indian
perspective of separation of powers is the harmonious // balancing
of powers among the various organs. The functions and powers of the three
organs are well defined and demarcated. All the three organs are supreme in
their own spheres as to560 how to act in accordance with the
provisions ///
of the Constitution. Keeping this in mind, the Indian judicial
system has a big tradition of independent judiciary. Indian judiciary has
played a very important and significant role in strengthening the600
democratic system of our country. The landmark judgements of (4) our judiciary reform the democratic
fabric of our country. The credibility
of Indian judiciary was the highest once upon a time. But it is quite
unfortunate to say that nowadays, the credibility of Judiciary is under
suspicion. It is being /
questioned from various corners. I can
cite so many examples. I am not going into the examples.
Sir, Parliament is the will of the people. Hence the
Legislature of Parliament is accountable to the people. The main question which
I //
would like to pose is this. To whom is the
Judiciary accountable?700 The Executive is accountable to the
people of India through the Parliament. The Parliament or the Legislature is
directly720
accountable to the people of India, because they are /// being
directly elected by the people and they have to go back to the electorate for
subsequent elections. So, the accountability of the Judiciary has to be
earmarked; that has to be defined. Now, I come to the point relating (5) to the National Judicial
Appointments Commission Act, 2014 which was struck down by the Supreme Court. I
fully appreciate that it was one of the landmark Acts which was brought by this
Government and enacted by the Parliament. The entire / House
appreciated it. What was the accountability of the National Judicial
Appointments Commission? Was it accountable to the Constitution? Both the
Houses of Parliament had passed the legislation, 20 States had passed840
the legislation, the President had given assent to // it and it had become an
Act of Parliament. After it became an Act of Parliament, the Supreme Court
struck down the law only on the ground that it was changing the basic character
of the Constitution. What was the ///
logic in that? That is why, it was being
said by the Solicitor General and late Arun Jaitley that it is the tyranny of
the unelected.
The Parliament and the Government should rise to the
occasion to protect the legislative (6)
supremacy of Parliament. So, I appeal to the Government to please bring back
the legislation. The National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill should be
brought back and it should be passed by the960 House. The Government should have the
political courage; /
the Government should have the political
will to pass that legislation again980 and constitute the National Judicial
Appointments Commission. Otherwise, these things will go on.
Sir, finally I would like to say that four members of
the Judiciary simply struck //
down that law. What is their accountability?
It means they are not ready to respect the will of the people. That is why, I
am saying that Parliament represents the will of the people. The will of the
people has ///
to be respected. Judicial reform is the
need of the hour. So, I appeal to the Government to come out with a
comprehensive legislation so as to implement judicial reforms in our1080
country.
Mr. Chairman, Sir, I am thankful to (7) you for giving me this opportunity
to present my party’s views on this piece of legislation, which the learned Law
Minister has brought in for passage in this House. I am a1120 little surprised
that none of my predecessor speakers / have expressed any
concern about the wording of this Bill, the import of this Bill because I
think, there is some concern in the manner in which the Government has brought
this Bill. I am surprised that every party wholeheartedly // has
supported this Bill. Since everybody has
spoken about everything else except the Bill, I think I should speak a little
bit on the Bill, and try and enlighten the House as1200 to what the Bill
attempts to do. The /// Government,
in its wisdom, had brought about an amendment both in the Supreme Court Judges’
Salaries Act as well as in the High Court Judges’ Salaries Act, to insert
Section 16B in the Supreme Court Judges Salaries Act and Section (8) 17B in the High Court Judges’
Salaries Act, to basically cater to1260 ageing Judges who reach the age of 80
years or above. That was the import of this Bill. Now, the wording at that
point was /
about that additional quantum of pension
or family pension for Supreme Court Judges, High Court Judges, and their
families, and that they are entitled to additional quantum from 80 years to
less than 85 years, from 85 //
years to less than 90 years, from 90 years
to less than 95 years. The word ‘from’
led to some dispute. So, the Guwahati
High Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court said that the word ‘from’ will /// mean
‘from the day you enter that age.’
I would urge the Government to reconsider and not be
churlish in these matters. We know that
it is very difficult to get good members and earning members of the (9) Bar to1400 become judges. The lawyers who are earning handsome amounts
in private practice do not want to become High Court Judges. What is the signal you are sending out? Do you want to slash a year’s / pension
of the judges and their families by doing this?
Is that the right signal we are sending out to the lawyers who are to be
persuaded today? I know the fact that
the Chief Justice of //
High Court had, actually, called young lawyers
into their chambers, and personally told them that they had made enough money
for themselves and for their families and now it was the time to serve the
nation.
Therefore, ///
Mr. Chairman, I would urge the Government
very seriously that this ought to be relooked at, particularly, when we have a
new Law Minister today. I am happy to
say that he has sent out all the right (10)
signals so far.
