SC bars HCs from hearing pleas against NJAC Act
12 March 2015 10:40 PM GMT
“No high court will proceed with the matters relating to the constitutional validity of these laws,” a three-judge bench headed by Justice A R Dave said.
The bench also said that it will decide later as to whether these petitions are maintainable or not and if they should be referred to a larger bench.
Attorney General (AG) Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Centre, vehemently opposed the submissions seeking a stay on these legislations saying these are “premature” as the Acts are yet to be notified.
“The challenge is premature as the Acts are not even notified and hence the question of interim order(of stay) does not arise,” the AG said, adding, “The passing of an Act is irrelevant. What is important is the date of notification.”
Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, who sought intervention on behalf of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), supported the Central government saying the present legislation is a “brilliant mixture of executives, judiciary and the civil society”. He also said that the functioning of the present collegium system has always been shrouded in secrecy.
Senior advocate T R Andhyarujina also supported Centre’s stand on the issue saying, “In no country of the world this system of judges appointing their brethren is operating”.
The bench also comprising justices J Chelameswar and Madan B Lokur, has now fixed the hearing on the batch of petitions for March 17. On Tuesday, the apex court commenced the hearing on the validity of the Acts. The Centre, while defending the Acts, had “vigorously” opposed the pleas saying the new system will strengthen the system rather than weaken it. During the arguments, senior advocates Fali Nariman and Anil Divan, who were appearing for Supreme Court Advocates-on- Record Association (SCAORA) and an advocate respectively, had alleged that the NJAC Act would take away and knock down the independence of judiciary.
Rohatgi had countered their contention and termed the apprehension of the other side as “alarmist” and said that “there was no basis to say that executive will gang up”. Nariman had stressed that fait accompli should not be allowed to take place and the order should be passed to maintain status quo by referring the matter before a five-judge constitution bench otherwise the entire exercise would become a “dodo”.
Home Guards in Delhi, PB, HP can’t be regularised: SC
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the decisions of High Courts of Delhi, Punjab and Haryana and Himachal Pradesh that the services of Home Guards in these three states cannot regularized. “In the cases before us though some of the Home Guards (Grah Rakshak) produced their appointment letters to show that they are serving as Platoon Havaldar for 10 to 28 years, we find that they have been enrolled and there is no appointment on regular basis. “They have never been paid salary/wages and there is no provision to make any payment of salary/wages other than the duty allowance and other allowances,” a bench of justices S J Mukhopadhaya and N V Ramana said.
The bench also said that it will decide later as to whether these petitions are maintainable or not and if they should be referred to a larger bench.
Attorney General (AG) Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Centre, vehemently opposed the submissions seeking a stay on these legislations saying these are “premature” as the Acts are yet to be notified.
“The challenge is premature as the Acts are not even notified and hence the question of interim order(of stay) does not arise,” the AG said, adding, “The passing of an Act is irrelevant. What is important is the date of notification.”
Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, who sought intervention on behalf of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), supported the Central government saying the present legislation is a “brilliant mixture of executives, judiciary and the civil society”. He also said that the functioning of the present collegium system has always been shrouded in secrecy.
Senior advocate T R Andhyarujina also supported Centre’s stand on the issue saying, “In no country of the world this system of judges appointing their brethren is operating”.
The bench also comprising justices J Chelameswar and Madan B Lokur, has now fixed the hearing on the batch of petitions for March 17. On Tuesday, the apex court commenced the hearing on the validity of the Acts. The Centre, while defending the Acts, had “vigorously” opposed the pleas saying the new system will strengthen the system rather than weaken it. During the arguments, senior advocates Fali Nariman and Anil Divan, who were appearing for Supreme Court Advocates-on- Record Association (SCAORA) and an advocate respectively, had alleged that the NJAC Act would take away and knock down the independence of judiciary.
Rohatgi had countered their contention and termed the apprehension of the other side as “alarmist” and said that “there was no basis to say that executive will gang up”. Nariman had stressed that fait accompli should not be allowed to take place and the order should be passed to maintain status quo by referring the matter before a five-judge constitution bench otherwise the entire exercise would become a “dodo”.
Home Guards in Delhi, PB, HP can’t be regularised: SC
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the decisions of High Courts of Delhi, Punjab and Haryana and Himachal Pradesh that the services of Home Guards in these three states cannot regularized. “In the cases before us though some of the Home Guards (Grah Rakshak) produced their appointment letters to show that they are serving as Platoon Havaldar for 10 to 28 years, we find that they have been enrolled and there is no appointment on regular basis. “They have never been paid salary/wages and there is no provision to make any payment of salary/wages other than the duty allowance and other allowances,” a bench of justices S J Mukhopadhaya and N V Ramana said.
Next Story
