Thread by @appan19491011

Maybe the yardstick is different !
Let us say whether the system of "Judges appointing the Judges" is acceptable to us ?
NDA Govt introduced the National Judicial Appointments Commission(NJAC) Bill in August 2014 to scrap the Collegium system of appointment of the Judges"
🧵1n

https://twitter.com/KalyanBalu7/status/1938209208249532785

2n
The National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC ) was introduced through the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act. The Act amended Articles 124 and 217, which deal with the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and the high courts.

3n
The amendment removed the words which stated that the President will appoint judges after “consultation” with the Chief Justice of India. Instead, the President was to appoint judges “recommended” by the NJAC.
The Act came into force on 13 April 2015.

4n
The Supreme Court declared that NJAC is interfering with the autonomy of the judiciary by the executive which amounts to tampering of the basic structure of the constitution where parliament is not empowered to change the basic structure.

5n
The NJAC Act passed after a rare meeting of minds across political parties in 2014 was struck down by the Supreme Court in a 4:1 majority in October 2015.
Let us look at the views of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar who chaired the committee that drafted the Constitution of India.

6n
He had a different opinion and was not in favour of this system.
quote:
"I personally feel no doubt that the Chief Justice is a very eminent person.But after all the Chief Justice is a man with all the failings,all the sentiments and prejudices which we as common people have.

7n
To allow the Chief Justice practically a veto upon the appointment of judges is really to transfer the authority to the Chief Justice which we are not prepared to vest in the President or the Government of day.
I therefore think it is also a dangerous
proposition."
Unquote .

8n
Questioning the judiciary for setting a timeline for the President to take decisions and accusing it of acting as a “super Parliament”,Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar on April 17, 2025, said the Supreme Court cannot fire a “nuclear missile” at democratic forces.

9n
We all know that the three pillars of Democracy are the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. These three branches of government are responsible for creating laws, implementing them, and ensuring they are upheld, respectively.

10n
A well-functioning democracy relies on the harmonious and independent operation of all the three pillars.
The concept of the separation of powers, where each pillar operates independently, is crucial to preventing any one branch from becoming too powerful..

11n
The point of contention is whether the SC (the Judiciary) is within its powers to fix a time limit to the President (the executive) in respect of the bills sent by Governors for the assent of the President
The controversy arose on account of the order of SC in the TN issue.

12n
While passing the bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, unanimously pronounced the judgement declaring that the Tamil Nadu Governor, R.N. Ravi’s delay in granting assent to state legislature bills was erroneous and illegal.

13n
They have also observed that once the legislature re-passes the Bill returned by the Governor earlier , with or without amendments, the Governor is constitutionally bound to grant assent. He cannot reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration at this stage.

14n
The bench by invoking the Court’s discretionary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, which allows the Court to pass any orders necessary to do “complete justice”, have given assent to all the 10 bills referred by TN Govt...

15n
Supreme Court’s April 8, 2025 order held that all actions taken by the President after the bills were reserved are non est in law (having no legal existence), and that the bills shall be deemed to have received the Governor’s assent on the day they were presented to him.

16n
The Governor shall not withhold assent once a Bill is passed again by the Assembly,” the Court said, setting specific timelines of one to three months for decisions on legislative matters, depending on the scenario.

17n
Justice Pardiwala said that he found it necessary to prescribe timelines for the Governor to discharge his duties under Article 200.
And hence the timelines of 1 to 3 months have been set.

18n
The Bench noted that neither the Governor nor the President enjoys immunity from judicial review under Articles 200 and 201.The Bench reiterated that Article 361, which grants immunity to the constitutional heads,does not bar courts from examining the actions of the Governor.

19n
Here some clarifications are needed to laymen like us :
1) Whether SC has authority to declare the actions taken by The President and the Governor null and void (having no legal existence) ?
2) Whether the immunity granted to Constitutional Heads is obsolete ?

20n
3) Can SC fix timelines to the President and the Governor ?
4) When NJAC was felt as an interference in the autonomy of the Judiciary by the Executive, what do we have to infer of the action of the SC fixing timelines to the President and Governor ?

21n
Isn't it an interference in the autonomy of the Executive by the Judiciary.
5) Besides any bill presented by the state govt,returned by the governor and by the President will be treated as passed if it is resubmitted to the Governor with or without amendments !

22n
As per SC order the resubmission by the State Govt to the Governor is to establish the fact that it is sent to the Governor for information, maybe to keep a record in his office of the bills consented by him as well of those not consented but deemed to have been passed.

23n
Doesn't it sound illogical ?
Doesn't this give ultimate power to the State Govts ?
For example if a State Govt submits a bill,declaring autonomy to it and after it is returned by the President & Governor,will the resumissionn liberate the State Govt from the Central Govt.

24n
The President,in a rare move,has sought SC's opinion ,through a Presidential Reference,on whether the court can “impose” timelines and prescribe the manner of conduct of Governors & the President while dealing with State Bills sent to them for assent or the reserved ones.

25n
@amitmalviya @RomeshNadir
@prettypadmaja @barandbench @ARanganathan72 @sridhariyer5 @sanjoychakra @MrSinha_ @skamaraj32 @dhayah1976 @Risid001 @dear_bhaarat @pallavict @DrAlkaRay2 @ArmyAoc @RandomTheGuy_ @BS_Prasad @BanCheneProduct @ashok_hegde @DamodarHegde4 @rishibagree

@amitmalviya @RomeshNadir @prettypadmaja @barandbench @ARanganathan72 @sridhariyer5 @sanjoychakra @MrSinha_ @skamaraj32 @dhayah1976 @Risid001 @dear_bhaarat @pallavict @DrAlkaRay2 @ArmyAoc @RandomTheGuy_ @BS_Prasad @BanCheneProduct @ashok_hegde @DamodarHegde4 @rishibagree @threadreaderapp unroll