The State Government's consultative role in High Court judge appointments undermines judicial independence and must be formally restricted.
Aaj ki debate ka motion yeh hai: 'State Government's Role in High Court Judge Appointments Must Be Curtailed' — yani kya rajya sarkar ka High Court ke nyayadheeshon ki niyukti mein jo bhi dakhlandazi hai, use seematit kiya jana chahiye. Yeh ek atyant mahatvapurna constitutional sawaal hai jo nyayapalika ki swatantrata aur samvaidhaanik santulan dono ko seedha prabhavit karta hai. Toh main Counsel Aarav se request karungi ki woh apna paksh prastut karein.
My lord, is motion ka seedha matlab yeh hai ki High Court judges ki niyukti mein State Government ka role sirf ek rubber-stamp se zyada nahi hona chahiye — aur yeh curtail karna zaroori hai isliye ki judicial independence ka hanavaa na ho. Ab dekhiye, Article 234 ke antargat Governor, State Public Service Commission aur High Court ke saath mil kar kaam karta hai — lekin yahan 'consultation' ka matlab 'concurrence' nahi hai, aur is loophole ko bandh karna zaroori hai. Isliye main poore paksh ke saath kehta hoon ki State ka role is niyukti prakriya mein curtail kiya jaana chahiye, taaki judiciary apni swatantrata se kaam kar sake.
My Lord, main is motion ka poora vipaksh karti hoon — State Government ki bhumika ko curtail karna na sirf constitutionally galat hoga, balki yeh us santulan ko tod dega jo Samvidhan ne swayam Article 234 ke zariye sthaapit kiya hai, jahan Governor — jo State ka Head hai — High Court se consultation ke baad judicial appointments karta hai, aur yeh ek established constitutional framework hai jise hum yahan challenge nahi kar sakte. Paksh yeh kehta hai ki State ki bhumika nyaayik swatantrata ko khatam karti hai — lekin My Lord, Article 234 mein to High Court ko consultation ka adhikaar diya hi gaya hai, toh State ki upasthiti ek check hai, takraav nahi. Is sthaapit santulan ko tod kar kya hum ek naye power vacuum ki taraf nahi ja rahe, jahan jawabdehi bilkul nahi hogi?
My lord, vipaksh yeh kehna chahta hai ki State Government ki bhoomika appointments mein zaroori hai — lekin main poochna chahta hoon: The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 ka Section 22 khud yeh saabit karta hai ki jab bhi judicial ya quasi-judicial niyuktiyon ki baat aati hai, toh Chief Minister aur mantriyon ki recommendation committee mein shamil hona ek systemic risk create karta hai — kyunki wahi log judiciary ki swatantrata ko khatam kar sakte hain jinke decisions par judiciary ko faisla sunana hai. My lord, is conflict of interest ko seedha curtail karna hi constitutional balance ki maang hai.
Ref: THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, 1993 · Section 22
My lord, paksh ne Article 234 ko apna aadhar banaya — lekin main kehna chahti hoon ki Article 234 subordinate judiciary ki appointments ke baare mein hai, High Court judges ki niyukti ke baare mein nahi; yeh motion ka core subject hai aur is provision se uska koi seedha sambandh nahi banta. Rahi baat High Court appointments ki, to Constitution ka established collegium system aur Article 226 ke tahat High Courts ki swatantra supervisory shakti yeh siddh karti hai ki executive ya state ka haath badhana judicial independence ke liye khatarnaak hai — state ki role curtail karna zaroori hai, yahi vipaksh ka dridh nishchay hai. Gujarat Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Act ki dhara 50 aur 51 bhi yahi dikhati hain ki jab bhi legislative drafters ne state government ko shakti di, unhone sath mein 'in consultation with the High Court' ka clause jodhna zaroori samjha — yani executive ki ekla shakti kabhi bhi acceptable nahi rahi.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 226; Gujarat Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Act, 1951 · Section 50; Gujarat Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Act, 1951 · Section 51
Petitioner ki taraf se yeh daliil rahi ki State Government ka judicial appointments mein role constitutionally simit hona chahiye, kyunki judicial swatantrata ki raksha sabse badi zimmedari hai — jabki respondent ki taraf se yeh kehna raha ki federalism aur local accountability ke liye State ki kuch sahbhagita zaroori hai. Main koi faisla nahi sunati, lekin ek balanced legal suggestion deti hoon: is debate ka sabse mazboot raasta yeh hai ki ek transparent, codified consultation mechanism banaya jaaye jahan State ki bhumika clearly defined aur time-bound ho — naa itni zyada ki independence compromised ho, naa itni kam ki local ground-reality ignore ho; citizens se gujarish hai ki aap is debate ko rate karein aur apni raay neeche darj karein.