Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.21 seconds)

Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record ... vs Union Of India on 6 October, 1993

Sir, the hon. Member, Shri Kharabela Swain, who initiated this debate, raised some fundamental questions.  I have noted them.  After 1993, we are all aggrieved about the process of consultation, which was provided in the Constitution.  It starts in the High Court for appointment of High Court judges.  Then, it goes to the State Governments, then to the Law Minister, then to the Chief Justice of India, then to the Prime Minister, and then to the President.  It is a participatory consultation process by which a lot of filtration is done and everybody’s view is available, and finally the President of India – I am emphasizing on this – is the appointing authority.  So, the power still vests with the President of India.  The only aberration that has taken place by virtue of the judgment in the case of Advocate on Record versus the Union of India is that the Judiciary has made their views binding on the Executive  and whatever they recommend, we are bound by their views because they said that they are collegium views and not the view of a single Chief Justice, and it is the collective wisdom of the Supreme Court.  So, everybody is agitated on this.
Supreme Court of India Cites 163 - Cited by 385 - J S Verma - Full Document
1