"Permission marketing is marketing without interruptions": Supreme Court responds to Vice-President; says as per Constitution, Parliament has right to enact law but Court has power to scrutinize it, Govt functionaries comments on collegium not well taken

The Supreme Court on Thursday took an unfavorable view of the comments made by government functionaries about the Collegium system of appointing judges to the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
|
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Vikram Nath, and Abhay S Oka said that the comments are not well taken, and asked Attorney General for India R Venkataramani to "advise them" (such government functionaries).
The Court specifically said that as per the scheme set out in the Constitution of India, while the parliament has the power to enact a law, the power to scrutinize such law vests with the courts.
"Scheme of our constitution requires our court to be the final arbiter of the law. Parliament has the right to enact a law but the power to scrutinize it lies with the court. it is imp that law laid down by this court is followed else people would follow the law which they think is correct," the Court said.
These observations were made in the context of recent statements by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar, who had said that Constitutional courts quashing changes made by the parliament to the Constitution does not happen in any other democracy.
He had particularly cited the example of the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, stating that the same was passed unanimously in Lok Sabha and unopposed in Raya Sabha; yet it was struck down by the top court.
On November 28, 2022, Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju also termed the collegium system as 'alien' to the Constitution of India.
He said that the Central government cannot be accused of 'sitting over recommendations' made by the Collegium and the judges' body cannot expect the government to simply sign off on all the recommendations made by it.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S Oka, and Vikram Nath, however, took objections to the remarks today.
"Let people not believe that they will follow a law which they believe is correct. this has larger ramifications. Comments on Supreme Court collegium by the govt functionaries etc is not well taken, You have to advise them, Attorney General," Justice Nath said.
"Any law declared by this court is binding on all the stakeholders," Justice Kaul weighed in
The Court was hearing two pleas - one from 2018 filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), and one filed by the Advocates Association Bengaluru that stated that the Central government's failure to process the names that the Supreme Court Collegium recommended for appointment as judges was in direct contravention of the Second Judges case.
At the last hearing, the bench remarked that the government picking and choosing persons from the names recommended was affecting the seniority of judges.
"Getting successful lawyers to join the profession is difficult in a monetary aspect. But another reason is the tortuous process of appointment and the best first-generation lawyers have declined to be part of the system citing this. This is the grim reality", the Court had remarked.
The top court had also said that the government should not hold names back without expressing its reservations, adding that good people must join the bench and the timeline must be adhered to unless there was an exception.
Earlier, the apex court had sought a response from the Union Law Secretary in the plea.
Pertinently, the bench had remarked that keeping the names on hold was "becoming some sort of a device to compel these persons to withdraw their names".
In its order today, the Court highlighted the delay by the government in clearing Collegium recommendations and how it was affecting the seniority of judges.
"When recommendations are made by SC collegium, the aspect of seniority has to be maintained. This is another aspect govt must look at. Attorney General (AG) assures us that he will look at it. We expect AG to play the role of a senior most law officer," the Court said.
It then posted the case for further hearing next week.
References:
Support Us
Satyagraha was born from the heart of our land, with an undying aim to unveil the true essence of Bharat. It seeks to illuminate the hidden tales of our valiant freedom fighters and the rich chronicles that haven't yet sung their complete melody in the mainstream.
While platforms like NDTV and 'The Wire' effortlessly garner funds under the banner of safeguarding democracy, we at Satyagraha walk a different path. Our strength and resonance come from you. In this journey to weave a stronger Bharat, every little contribution amplifies our voice. Let's come together, contribute as you can, and champion the true spirit of our nation.
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
ICICI Bank of Satyaagrah | Razorpay Bank of Satyaagrah | PayPal Bank of Satyaagrah - For International Payments |
If all above doesn't work, then try the LINK below:
Please share the article on other platforms
DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text. The website also frequently uses non-commercial images for representational purposes only in line with the article. We are not responsible for the authenticity of such images. If some images have a copyright issue, we request the person/entity to contact us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and we will take the necessary actions to resolve the issue.
Related Articles
- "Power of the lawyer is in the uncertainty of the law": Kerala High Court - Nudity should not be tied to sex. Mere sight of the naked upper body of the woman should not be deemed to be sexual, Just as beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, so is obscenity
- "गुस्ताख़ी-ए-फ़रिश्ता": Delhi High Court dismisses Waqf Board's plea against Sunehri Bagh Mosque's demolition, led by chairman of the Delhi Waqf Board, Amanatullah Khan; NDMC seeks public insights, inviting suggestions and objections
- “Judgment does not necessarily relate to the judiciary system”: “There is a limit to criticizing judges. Give us a break” laments Justice Chandrachud, but in Nupur case emotions of judges were so extensive that it “diluted the beheading in Udaipur”
- "In this hellhole of hatelusters, what's needed is a hatebuster": Rampur Court sentences Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan to 3-year imprisonment for hate speech against UP CM Yogi Adityanath in 2019 and trying to incite violence between two communities
- "अरे क्या वकील साब, इतना तो चलता है": In a recent judgment, Madras High Court redefines terrorism; granting bail to UAPA accused Asif Mustahin who expresses desire to join IS, ‘Planning to kill Hindu leaders from BJP, RSS cannot be called a terrorist act’
- "There is difference between blasphemy and expressing religious opinions based on one’s knowledge of the subject": Historic decision by Madras High Court from 2019
- "He who frames the question wins the debate": Adv. Sai Deepak argued his point, "I am sorry to say this, and let me try and tone down the rigour of my submission, to the extent of saying, I believe they have a cause- I just don’t believe they have a case"
- "Can omnibus orders be passed against demolitions": Supreme Court asks in Jamiat pleas challenging "Bulldozer" actions against anti-social elements in Uttar Pradesh and other states, refuses to pass interim orders, next hearing on Aug 10
- "As per Article 195 from the book ‘Principles of Mohammedan Law’ by Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mulla, Muslim girl above 16 is competent to marry any person of choice": Punjab and Haryana HC cites Sharia to justify child marriage
- "Man is not what he thinks he is, he is what he hides": Supreme Court rejects plea seeking details of December 12, 2018, Collegium meeting held, "Whatever is discussed shall not be in the public domain. Only final decision required to be uploaded"
- "That Allah put thee on the right Way of religion so follow that way... This is a reference to Shariah": Not age but Puberty is the decider, minor girl can marry without parents' consent on attaining puberty, has right to live with Husband: Delhi HC
- Minimum age of women for marriage is raised to 21 years: Union Cabinet clears proposal
- "I seem to smell the stench of appeasement in the air": Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud urged parliament to revise the age of consent for sex under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, saying this provision poses difficulties for judges
- "Man versus dog: in this round of alimony Olympics, Fido takes the gold!": In an unprecedented ruling, Mumbai's court insists that man's best friend requires maintenance too, husband now legally obliged to pay estranged wife's canine companions' upkeep
- "Success & all good things in life, start with a genuine concern for others": Supreme Court collegium publishing RAW, IB opinions on candidates for judgeship a matter of concern, crores of pending cases, delay of justice is denial of justice: Kiren Rijiju