Supreme Court rejects the various petitions challenging validity of National Judicial Appointment Commission Bill

The Supreme Court on 25th August 2014 rejected a bunch of PILs challenging the validity of Constitution (99th Amendment) Bill and the National Judicial Appointment Commission Bill 2014 on the ground that these are pre-mature as the bill is still in the process of becoming law and it has only been passed by the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha at the moment. Since it will amend Articles 124(2) and 217(1) of the Constitution of India, it needs to be ratified by the legislatures of at least half of the States of India (i.e. min. 15 States) before being sent to the President for approval. This law will replace the present collegium system for appointment of Supreme Court and High courts judges under which the collegium comprising three senior most judges of Supreme court including the CJI recommends the appointment of High Court and Supreme Court judges. 

Under the new system proposed to be introduced by this new law, the appointment will be made by a Commission which will be called National Judicial Appointment Commission which will comprise of 6 persons comprising the Chief Justice of India, two other seniormost judges of Supreme Court, Law Minister of India and two eminent personalities who would be chosen by a panel of Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India and leader of single largest party in Lok Sabha. 

The Attorney General argued that the Court can not restrain a government from enacting a law, it will lead to chaos, it will amount to interference of judiciary in legislative and executive domain.

Download free Android app for latest and important court decisions. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sgsolicitors.indianlaw&hl=en

Supreme Court orders for fast tracking criminal trials against politicians

Supreme Court of India is hearing a PIL regarding disqualification of those MPs and MLAs from contesting elections against whom chargesheet has been filed in a criminal court and regarding fast-tracking criminal cases involving politicians. This is Writ Petition (Civil) No.536/2011 titled as 'Public Interest Foundation vs Union of India'. (At present, a MP or MLA, only on being convicted, ceases to be MP / MLA. There is no disqualification incurred at the stage of being chargesheeted). 

On 16.12.2013, Supreme Court requested the Law Commission of India to expedite consideration of the two issues, namely, (1) whether disqualification should be triggered upon conviction as it exists today or upon framing of charges by the court or upon the presentation of the chargesheet by the Investigating Officer under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and (2) whether filing of false affidavits under Section 125A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 should be a ground of disqualification? and, if yes, what mode and mechanism needs to be provided for adjudication on the veracity of the affidavit? In pursuance thereto, the Law Commission prepared its recommendation in the form of 244th Report titled 'Electoral Disqualifications'. In this Report, the Law Commission recommended that MP / MLA should be disqualified on framing of charges against them by the court, subject to certain conditions. This was considered by the Supreme Court in hearing on 10th March 2014. 

To ensure the maintenance of probity of public office, to ensure conclusion of trial expeditiously, the Supreme Court on said day directed that in relation to sitting MPs and MLAs who have charges framed against them for the offences which are specified in Section 8(1), 8(2) and 8(3) of the RP Act, the trial shall be concluded as speedily and expeditiously as may be possible and in no case later than one year from the date of the framing of charge(s). In such cases, as far as possible, the trial shall be conducted on a day-to-day basis. If for some extraordinary circumstances the concerned court is being not able to conclude the trial within one year from the date of framing of charge(s), such court would submit the report to the Chief Justice of the respective High Court indicating special reasons for not adhering to the above time limit and delay in conclusion of the trial. In such situation, the Chief Justice may issue appropriate directions to the concerned court extending the time for conclusion of the trial. 

Click below for the Full text of Order dated 10th March 2014.
http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/536201131032014p.txt

On 08.03.2016, the Three Judge Bench referred the matter to Five Judge Constitution Bench, particularly in view of Judgment dated 27th August 2014 by 5-Judge Bench in Manoj Narula vs Union of India 2014 (9) SCC 1. Thereafter, there is no further development in the matter, as seen from Supreme Court website.

Click below for the Full text of Order dated 8th March 2016.
http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/casestatus_new/querycheck_page2.asp

http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/wc%2053611p.txt

Download free Android app for latest and important court decisions. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sgsolicitors.indianlaw&hl=en