The State Government's consultative role under the collegium-based High Court appointment process should be made legally binding, not merely advisory.
Aaj ki debate ka motion yeh hai: 'State Government ki consultation role, High Court judges ki niyukti mein, binding honi chahiye' — yani kya rajya sarkar ki rai ko ek zaroori shart mana jaaye, na ki sirf ek aupcharikta. Yeh ek gehri samvidhanik sawaal hai jo judicial independence aur cooperative federalism dono ko chhoota hai — toh main Counsel Aarav se nivedan karti hoon ki woh apna paksh prastut karein.
My lord, main yeh humbly lekin firmly kahunga ki aaj is motion ka paksh lena sirf ek procedural argument nahi hai — yeh judicial independence aur federal balance ki bunyad ki baat hai. Hamara Constitution khud, Article 234 ke zariye, yeh swadheen karta hai ki State ke judicial service appointments mein High Court ki salah zaruri hai — lekin abhi yeh salah sirf advisory hai, binding nahi, aur isi khaali jagah mein executive interference ka darwaza khulta hai. Main is debate mein yeh sthapit karna chahunga ki jab tak State Government ki consultation role ko binding nahi banaya jaata, tab tak judicial niyuktiyon mein imandari aur swatantrata dono khatare mein rehti hain.
Ref: constitution of india · Section 234
My lord, main is motion ka poora vipaksh karti hoon — kyunki hamari Constitution ne jaan-boojhkar 'consultation' ko 'concurrence' se alag rakha hai, aur yeh fark koi chook nahi, balki ek sochee-samjhee constitutional choice hai. Article 234 ke tahat bhi Governor apne High Court se sirf 'consultation' karta hai, binding approval nahi leta — toh State Government ko ek binding veto dena is carefully balanced framework ko torna hoga. Paksh ki yeh maang judicial independence ke naam par ulta nataija degi — kyunki agar State Government ka role binding ho jaaye, toh judiciary par direct political influence aa jaayegi, jo is poori appointment system ki soul ke khilaf hai.
My lord, vipaksh kehta hai ki consultation binding nahi honi chahiye — lekin is tark ko khud hamara legislative framework khaari karta hai: Article 234 ke tahat Governor subordinate judicial appointments sirf High Court ke saath consultation ke baad hi karta hai, aur Protection of Human Rights Act Section 22 mein High Court judge ki appointment ke liye bhi Chief Justice se consultation mandatory rakha gaya hai — yani khud Legislature ne bar bar yeh swikaara hai ki judicial appointments mein High Court ki rai ek formality nahi, balki ek zaroori check hai. Agar yeh consultation sirf advisory raha, toh executive kabhi bhi judicial character ko overlook karke apni pasand thop sakta hai — aur isi khatre ko rokne ke liye binding consultation ki zaroorat hai.
Ref: constitution of india · Section 234; THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, 1993 · Section 22
My lord, paksh yeh bhool raha hai ki Article 234 khud kehta hai — appointment Governor karega, 'after consultation' ke saath, na ki State ke 'binding veto' ke saath; toh 'consultation' ko 'binding' banana ek alag hi constitutional sanrachna hai jo vidyamaan framework se bilkul alag hai. Aur main yeh bhi kahuungi ki A3 aur A4 mein bhi yahi dikh raha hai — in statutes mein bhi sirf 'consultation' ki baat hai, 'binding recommendation' ki nahi — toh khud hamara statutory pattern yahi kehta hai ki mashwara lena zaroori hai, magar usse final authority banana ek alag leap hai jise Constitution support nahi karta. Isliye vipaksh ka stand clear hai — State ki role consultative rahe, binding nahi, kyunki judicial independence ka mool hi is separation mein hai.
Ref: constitution of india · Section 234; CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 · Section 16-2; THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, 1993 · Section 22
Proposition ki taraf se yeh daliil rahi ki State Government ki salah ko binding banana judicial independence aur local accountability ke liye zaroori hai — jabki Opposition ne kaha ki binding consultation separation of powers ko tod sakta hai aur collegium system ki autonomy ko khatra hai. Meri balanced legal suggestion yeh hai ki Article 217 ke under jo 'consultation' ka framework pehle se maujood hai, usse aur transparent banana chahiye — jaise NJAC Act mein seek kiye gaye multi-stakeholder input ki bhavna thi — lekin is consultation ko 'binding' banana bina, ek structured, time-bound aur recorded consultation mechanism banaya jaaye jisme State ka view formally document ho aur usse nazar-andaaz karne ka karan bhi likhit mein diya jaaye. Ab main citizens se request karungi ki aap dono pakshon ko rate karein aur apna vichar hamare saath share karein — yeh aapka debate, aapka democracy hai.
Ref: THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS COMMISSION ACT, 2014 · Section 6