The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on the maintainability of petitions challenging the validity of a constitutional amendment and the NJAC Act, meant to replace the collegium system of appointing judges.
A bench of justices AR Dave, J Chelameswar and Madan B Lokur reserved the judgement after Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Centre, wrapped up his arguments saying that the pleas be dismissed as they were “premature” and “academic” in nature.
Referring to various case laws, Rohtagi said the power of Parliament to make law is “plenary” and hence, the way adopted by the legislature in clearing the law on the floor of the House can’t be “tested” by the court. He was responding to submissions made by senior advocate FS Nariman that as per constitutional scheme, the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act should not have been passed ahead of enabling constitutional amendment.
“Where was the authority to pass the NJAC Act,” Nariman had asked and added the Act should have been passed after the constitutional amendment. “Only end product can be examined by the courts and it is irrelevant that this Act was passed earlier and that Act was passed later,” Rohatgi said, adding, “only an Act, after notification, can be tested in court of law and not the procedures adopted by Parliament.”
A bench of justices AR Dave, J Chelameswar and Madan B Lokur reserved the judgement after Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Centre, wrapped up his arguments saying that the pleas be dismissed as they were “premature” and “academic” in nature.
Referring to various case laws, Rohtagi said the power of Parliament to make law is “plenary” and hence, the way adopted by the legislature in clearing the law on the floor of the House can’t be “tested” by the court. He was responding to submissions made by senior advocate FS Nariman that as per constitutional scheme, the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act should not have been passed ahead of enabling constitutional amendment.
“Where was the authority to pass the NJAC Act,” Nariman had asked and added the Act should have been passed after the constitutional amendment. “Only end product can be examined by the courts and it is irrelevant that this Act was passed earlier and that Act was passed later,” Rohatgi said, adding, “only an Act, after notification, can be tested in court of law and not the procedures adopted by Parliament.”