The State Government's mandatory consultation role in High Court judge appointments undermines judicial independence and should be removed from the collegium process.
Aaj ka motion yeh hai: 'State Government's Mandatory Consultation in High Court Judge Appointments Must Be Abolished' — yani kya rajya sarkar ki is prakriya mein bhaagidari samvidhanik drishti se uchit hai, ya yeh nyayapalika ki swatantrata ke liye ek khatre ki ghanti hai. Yeh ek bahut hi mahatvapurn constitutional debate hai, aur main chahti hoon ki dono paksh apne vichar khulkar rakhein. Toh Counsel Aarav, please aap apna paksh prastut karein.
My lord, main yeh nivedan karta hoon ki State Government ka High Court judge appointments mein mandatory consultation ek constitutional overstep hai — kyunki Article 234 of the Constitution of India, 1950 spesifically 'persons other than district judges' ke liye consultation ka framework deta hai, lekin High Court judges ki niyukti ka maamlah Supreme Court ke collegium system se govern hota hai, jahan executive ka dakhhal judicial independence ko seedha khatre mein daalta hai. Isi baat ko reinforce karta hoon ki Gujarat aur Bombay Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Acts ke various sections — jaise Gujarat Act ke Section 45, 50, aur 51 — State Government ko sirf subordinate judicial functions mein consultation ka adhikar dete hain, na ki High Court level ki niyuktiyon mein; phir bhi State yeh mandatory consultation ka dawa zyada bade forums tak kheench raha hai. Is baat ko nazar-andaz karna nainsafi hogi, my lord, ki judicial independence ka mool siddhant yahi hai ki executive ka haath judge bananay ki prakriya mein jitna kam ho, utna behtar — aur isliye yeh mandatory consultation procedure, jo zabt ki jagah interference banta ja raha hai, abolish hona chahiye.
Ref: Gujarat Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Act, 1951 · Section 45; Gujarat Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Act, 1951 · Section 50
My lord, vipaksh ki taraf se main yeh kehna chahti hoon ki State Government ki mandatory consultation ko khatam karna — yeh ek constitutional sanrachna ko todna hoga, jo Article 234 ke antargat swayam Samvidhan ne sthaapit ki hai. Article 234 saaf kehta hai ki State judicial service mein niyuktiyan Governor dwara — State Public Service Commission aur High Court, dono ke paramarsh ke baad — ki jaayengi; yeh paramarsh koi discretionary nahi, balki constitutional roop se anivaarya hai. Iske saath hi, Gujarat aur Bombay dono ke Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Acts — jaise ki Section 45 aur ki Section 49 — yeh bhi dikhaate hain ki legislative practice ne baar-baar 'in consultation with the High Court' ko statutory mandates ke roop mein sthaapit kiya hai, jo is paramarsh ki zaroorat ko aur bhi pakka karta hai.
Ref: Gujarat Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Act, 1951 · Section 45; Bombay Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Act, 1951 · Section 49
My lord, vipaksh jo 'abolish' karne ki baat kar raha hai, woh seedha Article 234 ke khilaf jaata hai — jo Constitution ka Part VI, Chapter VI ka provision hai — jisme SPST likha hai ki High Court exercising jurisdiction ke saath consultation MANDATORY hai subordinate judicial service appointments mein. Yeh koi discretionary convention nahi, yeh ek constitutional mandate hai jo Governor ko bhi bind karta hai. Agar State Government ki is consultation role ko khatam kiya gaya, to hum ek aise vacuum mein pahunch jaayenge jahan judiciary ki independence ka daawa toh hoga, lekin constitutional safeguard ka structural framework toot jaayega.
My lord, Paksh ne jo dalil di hai woh sirf High Court ki supremacy ka argument hai — lekin main kehna chahti hoon ki Article 234 of the Constitution khud yeh mandate karta hai ki judicial service appointments mein High Court ki consultation ZARURI hai, aur yeh ek constitutional safeguard hai jo executive interference se nyaaypalika ko bachata hai. Gujarat Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Act, 1951 ki Section 45, 50, aur 51 bhi isi principle ko reinforce karti hain — in sab provisions ne baar baar 'in consultation with the High Court' ke shabdon ko statutes mein insert kiya, yeh koi galti nahi thi, yeh ek DELIBERATE legislative policy thi. Isliye State Government ki mandatory consultation ko khatam karna in constitutional aur statutory provisions ke seedha khilaf hoga — aur main is motion ka poora vipaksh karti hoon.
Ref: Gujarat Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Act, 1951 · Section 45; Gujarat Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Act, 1951 · Section 50; Gujarat Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Act, 1951 · Section 51
Ek taraf ka kehna hai ki State Government ki mandatory consultation judicial independence ko kamzor karti hai aur High Court appointments mein executive interference badhati hai — doosri taraf ka kehna hai ki Article 234 ke tahat yeh consultation ek constitutional safeguard hai jo subordinate judiciary ki quality aur accountability ensure karti hai. Meri balanced legal suggestion yeh hai ki dono pakshon ke arguments ko dekhte hue, ek structural review ho jisme consultation ki prakriya ko codified aur time-bound banaya jaaye — taaki na executive dominance ho, na judicial insulation from accountability — aur Article 39A ke ideal ke anusar, justice sab tak samaan roop se pahunche. Ab main citizens se nivedan karti hoon ki is debate ko rate karein aur apni raay zaroor dein.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 39A