The constitutional convention requiring state government consultation before appointing a High Court Chief Justice is a binding obligation, not a mere formality that the Centre can bypass.
Aaj ki is debate ka motion hai — 'Centre Must Obtain State Consent Before Appointing High Court Chief Justice.' Yeh ek gehri constitutional sawal hai: kya High Court ki niyukti mein State ki bhi zimmedari aur awaaz honi chahiye, ya yeh sirf Centre aur Supreme Court Collegium ka adhikar hai? Main Counsel Aarav se request karungi ki woh apna paksh pesh karen.
My lord, main yeh paksh leta hoon ki Centre ko High Court ke Chief Justice ki niyukti se pehle concerned State ki sahmat leni chahiye — kyunki High Court ek State ka sabse bada nyayik stambh hai, uski kaarya-kshamata seedha State ke logon ko prabhavit karti hai. Cooperative federalism ka mool siddhant yahi kehta hai ki jo sansthan State ke daayare mein kaam kare, uske uchch niyuktiyon mein State ki awaaz honi chahiye — warna federalism sirf kaagaz par reh jaata hai. Aur my lord, jab koi specific verified authority is waqt mere paas nahi hai, main saf keh deta hoon — lekin yeh dalil constitutional convention aur praktek par khadi hai, jise main aage elaborate karunga.
My lord, main is motion ka poora vipaksh karti hoon — kyunki Constitution ka settled law, jo 99th Amendment ko strike down karne ke baad bhi aaj bhi lagu hai, yeh spashtata kehta hai ki High Court Chief Justice ki niyukti mein State consent ki koi constitutional zaroorat nahi hai, sirf President ki prior approval chahiye. A2 aur A4 — yaani Section 1-48 aur Section 2-50, jo 99th Amendment ke baad restore kiye gaye — yahi confirm karte hain ki Supreme Court ne NJAC ko isliye khatam kiya kyunki executive interference — chahe Centre ka ho ya State ka — judicial independence ko nuksaan pahunchata hai. Agar State consent mandatory kiya gaya, to wahi constitutional vice dobara paida hoga jo NJAC mein tha — aur main samajhti hoon ki paksh is fundamental tension ko address hi nahi kar raha.
Ref: CONSTITUTION OF INDIA · Section 1-48; CONSTITUTION OF INDIA · Section 2-50
My Lord, vipaksh kehta hai ki High Court Chief Justice ki niyukti mein State consent ki zaroorat nahi — lekin main directly A2 aur A3 ki taraf dhyan dilata hoon: Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 ne yahi koshish ki thi ki niyukti prakriya mein judicial primacy ko kamzor kiya jaaye, aur Supreme Court ne NJAC case — AIR 2016 SC 117 — mein use poori tarah se struck down kar diya, kyunki yeh judicial independence ke basic structure ka violation tha. Ab agar federal units yaani States ki baat karen, to A1 — Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, Section 22 — bhi yahi siddhaant confirm karta hai: jab bhi kisi senior judicial ya quasi-judicial post par niyukti ho, ek multi-stakeholder committee — jisme Chief Minister, Speaker, aur Opposition Leader shamil hain — ki recommendation mandatory hai. My Lord, yeh legislative pattern clearly bolta hai ki State ki meaningful participation niyukti prakriya mein ek sthaapit sanvaidhanik convention hai, jo sirf courtesy nahi, balki structural zaroorat hai — aur isi aadhaar par hamara motion sahi thahrta hai.
Ref: protection of human rights act, 1993 · Section 2-8
My lord, Paksh ne jo sabse bada tark diya — ki 99th Amendment ke zariye state ko voice milni chahiye thi — woh khud Supreme Court ne AIR 2016 SC 117 mein khaari kar diya, kyunki woh judicial independence ke against tha. Iska seedha matlab yeh hai ki Constitution ka established framework kehta hai: High Court Chief Justice ki niyukti mein state consent ki koi jagah NAHI hai — yeh constitutional design hai, koi chook nahi. Aur main yeh bhi kehna chahti hoon, my lord, ki A4 ke tehat jo amendment struck down hua, woh isi motion ki core demand ko already reject kar chuka hai — is debate ka faisla toh Supreme Court ne 2015 mein hi de diya tha.
Ref: CONSTITUTION OF INDIA · Section 2-50; CONSTITUTION OF INDIA · Section 1-48
Petitioner-side ka kehna hai ki High Court Chief Justice ki niyukti mein State ki salah zaroori hai — federalism aur judicial independence dono ke liye; jabki Respondent-side ka kehna hai ki yeh niyukti ek established collegium process ke tahat hoti hai aur State consent isme constitutional roop se required nahi. Meri balanced legal suggestion yeh hai ki jis tarah Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 ki Section 22 mein State-level niyuktiyon ke liye ek multi-stakeholder committee ka model diya gaya hai, usi tarah High Court Chief Justice ki niyukti mein bhi structured consultation — naa ki veto — ka ek transparent framework sochna chahiye, jo judicial primacy ko bhi protect kare aur cooperative federalism ko bhi samman de. Ab main citizens se nivedan karungi ki is debate ko dhyan se sunkar apni raay zaroor den aur ise rate karen.
Ref: THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, 1993 · Section 22