Justice Datta Challenges Misconceptions on Judicial Appointments
In a significant address on Wednesday, Justice Dipankar Datta of the Supreme Court of India dispelled the commonly held belief that judges solely appoint other judges, while also taking the government to task for its selective approval of proposals from the Collegium. His remarks came during the hearing of petitions against a 2023 law that enhances the Executive’s role in selecting members of the Election Commission of India (ECI).
Collegium System Under Scrutiny
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta attempted to counter concerns over executive dominance in the ECI by drawing parallels to the judiciary’s Collegium system, where sitting judges play a primary role in appointing new judges. Justice Datta, however, refuted this argument, clarifying that the Collegium system involves a consultative process between the judiciary and the government.
“The notion that ‘judges appoint judges’ is a myth propagated by vested interests,” Justice Datta declared. He emphasized that the appointment process is far from unilateral, involving multiple layers of consultation, intelligence vetting, and ultimately, the President’s approval.
Criticism of Government’s Selective Approvals
Justice Datta expressed concern over the government’s tendency to selectively approve Collegium recommendations. He noted that such actions undermine the sanctity of the Collegium’s resolutions, warning against allowing selective implementation to become an accepted norm.
“The judiciary often refrains from confronting the executive to avoid a constitutional crisis,” Justice Datta observed. However, he questioned the sustainability of such a practice, citing Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s vision of an independent and competent judiciary as being under strain.
On the 2023 Election Commission Law
The 2023 law establishes a three-member Selection Committee for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners, excluding the Chief Justice of India from the process. Instead, the panel includes a Union Cabinet Minister, alongside the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, which has raised concerns about the ECI’s independence.
Justice Datta criticized the government for likening the proposed selection panel to the Collegium system, describing it as an “evasive and discouraging” tactic. He expressed hope that the Collegium would continue to make judicious choices, reducing opportunities for criticism.
Division Bench’s Split Verdict
The ruling also addressed whether to refer petitions challenging the 2023 Act to a larger Bench. The Division Bench, consisting of Justices Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, delivered a split verdict. Justice Datta opposed referring the matter to a larger Bench, while Justice Sharma argued that it involved a substantial legal question warranting further examination.
