The Collegium system's opaque process of recommending High Court Chief Justices undermines constitutional accountability and should be replaced by a transparent statutory body.
Aaj ki debate ka motion hai: 'The Collegium System Should Be Replaced by a Transparent Statutory Judicial Appointments Commission.' Yeh sawaal seedha judicial independence aur democratic accountability ke beech ke tension ko chhoota hai — ek taraf judiciary ki swatantrata, doosri taraf nagarikon ke prati jawabdahi. Main Counsel Aarav se nivedan karti hoon ki woh apna paksh pesh karein.
My lord, main yeh poori tarah se maanta hoon ki Collegium system — jisme judges hi judges ko niyukt karte hain, bina kisi statutory framework ke, bina kisi public accountability ke — ek closed, opaque process hai jo na to Constitution ke Article 14 ki equality ki bhavna se mel khaata hai, na hi ek democratic republic ki zimmedari se. Ek aisa system jahan na selection criteria likhe hue hain, na koi public record milti hai, na koi baahri janch ki gunjaish hai — woh system transparency ka dushman hai, aur is motion ka seedha justification hai. Isliye main firmly kehna chahta hoon ki ek Statutory Judicial Appointments Commission — jo clear mandate, diverse stakeholders aur documented process ke saath kaam kare — hi is democratic desh mein judicial niyukti ka sahi, accountable aur constitutionally sound zariya ho sakta hai.
My lord, main is motion ka poora vipaksh karti hoon — Collegium ko hatana nahi, balki usse reform karna chahiye, aur jo NJAC laya gaya tha, usse Supreme Court ne Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) mein strike down kar diya tha, isliye statutory commission ki yeh maang already constitutionally tested aur rejected hai. Aur my lord, dekhiye Constitution ka Article 124B — jo NJAC ka mandate tha — usme 'ability and integrity' ensure karne ki baat thi, lekin usme judicial independence ka koi safeguard nahi tha, executive ko veto milta tha, jo separation of powers ke core principle ko hi khatam kar deta. Paksh kehta hai transparency chahiye — main bhi maanti hoon transparency zaruri hai — lekin transparency ke naam par judicial independence ko executive control mein dena iska hal nahi hai, aur is distinction ko hum ignore nahi kar sakti.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 39A
My Lord, vipaksh kehta hai ki collegium system judicial independence ki guarantee hai — lekin main yeh point seedha counter karta hoon: ke tahat Constitution mein Article 124B pehle se insert kiya ja chuka tha, jisme National Judicial Appointments Commission ka yeh sushpasht duty tha ki woh ability aur integrity dono sunishchit kare — yani transparency aur independence simultaneously possible hai, yeh dono mutually exclusive nahi hain. Aur Article 234 hume dikhata hai ki subordinate judiciary mein Governor, Public Service Commission aur High Court — teeno milkar appointments karte hain, to multi-stakeholder model judicial independence ko khatam nahi karta. Isliye my lord, ek statutory commission jo transparent ho, woh judiciary ko kamzor nahi karti — balkay accountability aur legitimacy dono deti hai, jo akela collegium kabhi nahi de sakta.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 39A; Constitution of India · Article 39A
My lord, Paksh ne bahut baar 'transparency' ka naara lagaya, lekin woh yeh bhool gaye ki judicial independence ka sabse bada dushman wahi commission hoti hai jisme executive ka haath hota hai — aur koi bhi statutory body, jisme sarkar ke nominees shaamil hon, usi khatra ko paida karti hai. Main samajhti hoon ki Collegium mein kami hai, lekin ek beemaar vyavastha ko badlne ka matlab yeh nahi ki hum judge-making ki chabi seedha executive ke haath mein de den — yeh ilaaj bimari se bhi khatarnak hoga. Isliye vipaksh ka stand bilkul spasht hai: jo bhi reform ho, uska dhang aisa hona chahiye jo independence ko surakshit rakhe, na ki use dilute kare — aur abhi jis tarah ka commission propose ho raha hai, woh woh guarantee nahi deta.
To summarise: Petitioner-side ka kehna hai ki Collegium system mein transparency aur accountability ki kami hai, isliye ek statutory Commission — jaise Article 124B aur NJAC Act, 2014 ke Section 6 mein parikalpana ki gayi thi — zyada democratic aur rule-based hoga; jabki Respondent-side ka kehna hai ki judicial independence ki raksha ke liye appointments mein executive interference nahi honi chahiye, aur Supreme Court ne 2015 mein NJAC ko isi aadhar par asanvaidhanik qarar diya tha. Meri balanced legal suggestion yeh hai: Legislature aur Judiciary ko mil kar ek aisa framework banana chahiye jisme Chief Justice ki primacy bhi bani rahe, lekin ek independent civilian ya eminent-person component — jaise Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 ke Section 22 mein multi-stakeholder committee ka model hai — transparency aur public trust ke liye shamil kiya jaye, aur poori prakriya legally enforceable regulations se governed ho. Ab main sabhi nagrik-drashtagano se nivedan karti hoon ki aap is debate ko rate karein aur apni raay humein batayein.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 39A; THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS COMMISSION ACT, 2014 · Section 6; THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, 1993 · Section 22