Collegium hellbent on Naik’s appointment

No democracy allows absolute powers to the unelected. Hence, this kind of stubbornness of the Supreme Court Collegium has not gone down well with the pro-democracy people.

New Delhi, Jan 12: This is happening for the third time. The Supreme Court Collegium, comprising of Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Justices S.K. Kaul and K.M. Joseph, has again recommended the name of advocate Nagendra Ramachandra Naik for judgeship in Karnataka High Court.

With reports suggesting that the collegium is hellbent on appointing Naik as a judge of Karnataka HC, all eyes are now on the next course of action from the government side. The collegium had earlier recommended Naik's name twice - first time in 2019 and then in 2021 again, despite objections from the government.

There has been a conflict going on between collegium and the government regarding the appointment of judges for various reasons. This is one of the outcomes of the same conflict.

Appointing a judge despite govt's strong objections

The collegium has been stubborn on appointing Naik despite several strong objections sent by the government. However, ignoring all the objections the collegium has claimed that holding back the appointment is 'unconstitutional'. The claim is based on the argument that the government's denial is violating the ruling of a nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the Second Judges case.

According to the collegium, the 1993 judgment is binding on the government. It argues that if a recommendation is unanimously reiterated, with reasons, by the Supreme Court Collegium, there is no choice left for the government but to accept the appointment. This has, however, not gone down well with the pro-democracy people.

No democracy allows absolute power to unelected

Although it is considered good for the judiciary that it should operate independent of all influences, the collegium system has bestowed absolute powers to the 'Me Lords'. They don't hold any accountability to the citizens of India but enjoy absolute power which is not healthy for democracy. After all, the judges are only servants of the people and are not elected representatives of the people.

The outcome of such absolute powers make the 'Me Lords' the de facto rulers of the country. They can hold back any government initiative and none could even dare to speak against it. In fact, there are no parallel examples in any part of the world where the judiciary has such absolute powers, and where it appoints its own judges and none can hold them accountable for whatever they do.

The Collegium system is being criticised for it enables the 'Me Lords' to appoint themselves, regulate their activities and also wield the power to punish those who question them. It goes against the very spirit of democracy.