August 13, 2014
Sukhendu Sekhar Roy speaks on the 99th Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2014 | Transcript
Thank you, Sir. While speaking on the 99th Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2014, I would like to make it clear that my Party, the All India Trinamool Congress, and our leader, Ms. Mamata Bannerjee, always believe in the independence of Judiciary and the powers of judicial review.
We have seen in this country how the judiciary was made to measure in the mid-70s and what was the resultant effect on our body polity. Therefore, we are very much cautious. It is true that we have learnt by lessons; it is true that our judiciary, particularly the High Courts and the Supreme Court, in plethora of cases, have given landmark judgements ensuring justice — social, political and economic – as enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution of India. There is no doubt about it. But when we look at the process of selection of Judges, we feel disturbed, as rightly pointed out by Shantaramji few minutes back, because in no democratic country of the world such a Collegium system exists. He has mentioned a number of countries. I am giving the example of one country, that is, Switzerland. In Switzerland, the Members of the Swiss Federal Assembly appoint the Members of Swiss Federal Court. But, through this Amendment Bill or the other Bill, we are not seeking that power of Switzerland that the Members of Parliament will appoint the Judges of the Supreme Court. Rather we are trying to evolve a system. Why? Our hon. Law Minister, while introducing the Bill, has given a chronological account as to how we have dealt with this thing. We have been thinking of this for the past 24 years without arriving at any conclusion whatsoever. How long should we wait and why is it required, and why is it necessary? Everybody knows what is the effect of the Second Judges Case Judgement.
The Supreme Court itself changed the basic structure of the Constitution by interpreting a particular article by importing a new interpretation. Although in several cases the Supreme Court has said that while interpreting a particular word, no interpretation other than the ordinary dictionary meaning should be imported. But in that case, the Supreme Court interpreted it in a manner which is prejudicial to the interest of functioning of the judiciary in this country. This is why I support it. And I think that this Bill is very much necessary. Sir, this balance has been upset by the Second Judges Case and the original balance of power needs to be restored. We need to restore the status quo ante.
Otherwise, the very purpose of the Constitution goal will be frustrated; what the Constitution makers thought, what they perceived and what they made while enacting the Constitution, that will also be frustrated, and it will be a disrespect to the framers of the Constitution, according to us. Sir, even the National Commission to Review the Working of the Indian Constitution said, “It would be worthwhile to have a participatory mode with the participation of both the Executive and the Judiciary in making such recommendations. The Commission proposes the composition of the Collegium which gives due importance to and provides for the effective participation of both the Executive and the judicial wings of the State as an integrated scheme for the machinery for the appointment of Judges. The Commission, accordingly, recommends the establishment of a National Judicial Commission under the Constitution.” Sir, this recommendation was of 2002 and we are in 2014 now, and still discussing it.
I will conclude by quoting a remark of the very honourable Judge, who was one of the architects of the judgement of the Second Judges case, late Justice Verma. Kindly allow me to say two-three lines because that is very vital. He even appeared before our Standing Committee and we had the opportunity to hear him. What he said in other areas, he said the same thing, and I am quoting from his remarks. Late Justice Verma, who was one of the authors of the Second Judges case, on a later reflection, observed, “My 1993 judgment has been both misunderstood and misused. Therefore, some kind of rethink is required on my judgment and the appointment process of High Court and Supreme Court Judges is basically a joint or participatory exercise between the Executive and the Judiciary, both taking part in it.”. But what happened in this Constitution (Amendment) Bill or the other Bill? When we will discuss that, we will discuss that also. Now, not only the Executive and the Judiciary have been empowered but even civil society has been included. Two eminent persons of civil society have been included in the process of selection. Then, what is the objection? Where lies the objection? I personally feel, I strongly feel, that the Government has tried to broaden and widen the scope of selection by way of introducing this Constitution (Amendment) Bill. I support this Bill on behalf of my Party.
