The Supreme Court bench of justices Anil Dave, Chelameshwar and AK Sikri has declined to entertain the five writ petitions against the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) bill.
What they said
Fali Nariman eloquently argued why it is not a premature matter. He said he is all for the NJAC but not in its present format. Earlier, in 2003, the JAC had an odd number of members (five) which was better than the NJAC’s system of six members. If only two oppose an appointment, it doesn’t go through. In the present NJAC there are three Supreme Court judges so if any of the other two reject a candidature, then there is no primacy of judges’ opinion.
Ex-additional solicitor general and petitioner Bishwajit Bhattacharya argued that the matter was already covered by a 1978 reference, where, according to him, even a bill can be challenged and constitutional amendments can be challenged despite the entire process not having completed.
Petitioner ML Sharma raised several eyebrows by talking about parliamentary procedure and arguing, how can there be a commission under article 124A when such an article does not exist.
Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi confidently argued for the government saying that the writs were premature.
Justice Sikri was very vocal, Justice Dave a little annoyed by the Mumbai lawyer’s behaviour, and Justice Chelameshwar was attentive on giving inputs.