Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

“Some of the provisions relating to the determination of leave allowances of judges in both the Acts needed to be simplified.”             We all know that the birth of this Bill took place because the Supreme Court asked the Government to review the salaries and pensions of the Supreme Court judges.We all know that our judiciary is under tremendous strain. I am not sitting in judgement of the judiciary. They are judging all of us. They are even judging the House, which is the voice of the people. Decrying or negating the NJAC is not only a slap on the Government or the House but also a slap on the face of the people of this country.  It is a very sad event. All of us are concerned. Those who think for this country are concerned because it is not just those few judges who took the decision, it is a mindset which is gaining predominance in this country.

          I want to raise two points regarding the NJAC Bill. What happened to that Bill? I fully support the view expressed by the Law Minister as well as Shri Arun Jaitley, the hon. Finance Minister. I quote the words spoken by Shri Arun Jaitley, the hon. Finance Minister: “It is the tyranny of the unelected”. There is no doubt about it because the entire Parliament consisting of both Houses of Parliament and 20 State Assemblies have approved the Constitution Amendment but in a Five-Member Bench four Judges decided that the will of the people will not survive and only their interest will survive, their decision will be final. What wrong the Government did was this. After the pronouncement of the judgement, what was the position taken by the Government? The Government was ready and willing to give comments for reformation of the collegium. My point is that the Government of India shall never give any comments for the reformation of the collegium. By giving any comments or response for reformation of the collegium as directed by the Supreme Court even indirectly you are taking away the right of Parliament, you are infringing the right of Parliament because both Houses of Parliament have unanimously passed the Constitution Amendment and most of the State Assemblies have passed the Amendment. That is the will of the people. A Four-Member Bench is directing that you should come and give some comments so that they would reform the collegium. How can the Government go at an immediate instance? The Government ought to have come back to Parliament and reported to Parliament that the Spreme Court Bench has struck down the Bill; we have no option, what to do? The Government has not consulted the Opposition. The Government took a stand and is amenable and subject to the Supreme Court verdict. It is ready to give comments and response for the collegium reformation process. This is totally unfair as far as parliamentary practice is concerned. Whether it is NDA or UPA, BJP, Congress, CPI, Left or Right, we have to protect the will of the people. It is not the will of the individuals. We should stand to fight out this case. We have to bring the NJAC Bill back to the domain of Parliament and it should be implemented.

HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is the role of the Parliament then?
SHRI D.V. SADANANDA GOWDA: Sir, I am coming to that.  There was a fiery speech as far as NJAC is concerned.  I do not want to clarify much about NJAC because a final verdict has not yet come.  Of course, on 16th October, the Collegium system has been restored and 99th Constitutional amendment was struck down.
 
HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Law Minister, that is not the point. As has been said by Mr. Premachandran, Parliament has the power to enact laws.  When the Supreme Court says that the term and other things will remain like that, then they are dictating things.  Then why are we discussing it?  That is the point which the hon. Members are raising.  We have to obey the judgments of the Supreme Court which you are saying is somewhat misleading the House.
HON. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Hon. Members, now it is going to be six o’clock. If the House agrees, then we can extend the time of the House till the reply and passing of this Bill and we have one more Bill to move.
SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: Sir, yes.
SHRI TATHAGATA SATPATHY  : Sir, those Members who spoke on the Bill, can they seek some clarifications?
HON. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That can be done after the reply of the hon. Minister.

18.00 hours SHRI D.V. SADANANDA GOWDA: As far as NJAC is concerned, I want to say something.… (Interruptions) I am not able to answer it because the final verdict has not come from the Supreme Court.  They have sought some suggestions. Of course, we have also received some suggestions and certain suggestions are given to the Supreme Court.  So, till the final verdict comes out from the Supreme Court, we are not in a position to debate that issue. But what they have said is that there are certain deficiencies in the collegium system and so, you may give your suggestions so that they will get it rectified.  It is a continuation of the earlier judgement. It has come out of that judgement only. … (Interruptions) They might have struck down the NJAC but subsequently, they have continued the same Bench to hear some more suggestions from various corners and stakeholders.  Unless and until the final verdict comes from the Supreme Court, I am not in a position to debate on this issue.