Justice Questions Judicial Appointments Amid Concerns Over Executive Influence
In a recent hearing in New Delhi, Justice Dipankar Datta raised significant concerns about the process of appointing the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs). He suggested that the idea of “judges appointing judges” is misleading, arguing that the judiciary often finds itself overshadowed by the executive branch when it comes to these appointments.
Justice Datta’s remarks were made in response to solicitor general Tushar Mehta’s argument that the involvement of executive members in the selection committee for CEC and EC appointments is justified because judges appoint judges in the judiciary.
The CEC and EC (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 established a selection panel led by the Prime Minister and including the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Union Minister. Justice Datta criticized this setup, stating that the credibility of collegiate resolutions is compromised when the executive selectively implements their recommendations. He pointed out that even if most candidates recommended by the collegium are approved, withholding even one candidate undermines the integrity of the judicial selection process.
He emphasized the executive’s decisive role in judicial appointments, labeling arguments for the current law as evasive. Justice Datta expressed frustration over the lack of transparency, as many deserving candidates recommended by the collegium remain unappointed without reasonable explanations. He questioned the need to include outsiders in the selection stage given the executive’s dominant role in judicial appointments.
Despite acknowledging that the collegium system has its shortcomings, Justice Datta expressed optimism for improvement, urging that only qualified choices be made moving forward to minimize future criticism of the system.
On the other hand, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, who also sat on the bench, disagreed with Justice Datta’s views on Mehta’s argument. Justice Sharma stated that the solicitor general’s submission did not serve as a criticism of the collegium system nor did it ignite significant debate about its effectiveness.
Justice Sharma noted that Mehta’s argument focused on constitutional matters, comparing the current committee’s setup to the National Judicial Appointments Commission, which was ruled unconstitutional in 2015 for including outsiders. He insisted that a degree of independence should also be acknowledged within the executive branch.
Justice Datta concluded by asserting that the belief that the collegium solely controls judicial appointments is perpetuated by “vested interests.” He called for clarity, stating that ultimately, the executive holds the final authority in these appointments. He questioned the sustainability of the current state of affairs, reiterating that the collegium’s role is mainly advisory, and it is important to recognize that imperfections in choices are not the norm but rather exceptions.
