This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/world/asia/india-supreme-court-narendra-modi-judge-selection.html
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Indian Supreme Court Rules Against Modi’s Judge Selection Law | Indian Supreme Court Rules Against Modi’s Judge Selection Law |
| (about 9 hours later) | |
| NEW DELHI — India’s Supreme Court declared on Friday that a law pushed by the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi that would have increased the executive branch’s power over the selection of judges was unconstitutional, a decision hailed as a landmark affirming the independence of the judiciary. | |
| “If the alignment of tectonic plates on distribution of powers is disturbed, it will quake the Constitution,” Justice Kurian Joseph, one of five judges who heard the case, wrote in the ruling. “Once the constitutional structure is shaken, democracy collapses.” | “If the alignment of tectonic plates on distribution of powers is disturbed, it will quake the Constitution,” Justice Kurian Joseph, one of five judges who heard the case, wrote in the ruling. “Once the constitutional structure is shaken, democracy collapses.” |
| But Friday’s decision was not without controversy, because it upheld a system of appointments to higher courts by a panel of judges, known as a collegium, that has been criticized for a lack of transparency. | But Friday’s decision was not without controversy, because it upheld a system of appointments to higher courts by a panel of judges, known as a collegium, that has been criticized for a lack of transparency. |
| India has a long tradition of a judiciary independent from the rest of the government, a situation reinforced by a Supreme Court decision in 1993 creating the collegium system and all but cutting the executive branch out of the selection process. | India has a long tradition of a judiciary independent from the rest of the government, a situation reinforced by a Supreme Court decision in 1993 creating the collegium system and all but cutting the executive branch out of the selection process. |
| Lawyers have said the 1993 decision was reached in part because of controversies surrounding the transfer of judges during a two-year state of emergency, beginning in 1975, when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s government exercised sweeping and arbitrary powers. | Lawyers have said the 1993 decision was reached in part because of controversies surrounding the transfer of judges during a two-year state of emergency, beginning in 1975, when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s government exercised sweeping and arbitrary powers. |
| In April, Mr. Modi’s government enacted the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, which was struck down on Friday. It had been passed unanimously by a Parliament that is rarely unified, along with a constitutional amendment ensuring its validity, but the commission was never formed because the Supreme Court case was underway. | In April, Mr. Modi’s government enacted the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, which was struck down on Friday. It had been passed unanimously by a Parliament that is rarely unified, along with a constitutional amendment ensuring its validity, but the commission was never formed because the Supreme Court case was underway. |
| Though legal analysts and the many lawyers who had argued against the law called Friday’s decision a victory for the separation of powers and democracy, experts also agreed with the government’s argument that the existing process of appointing judges was flawed and insufficiently open. | Though legal analysts and the many lawyers who had argued against the law called Friday’s decision a victory for the separation of powers and democracy, experts also agreed with the government’s argument that the existing process of appointing judges was flawed and insufficiently open. |
| “Appointments will continue to be made in an opaque system where all the stakeholders will not have their voice,” said the attorney general, Mukul Rohatgi. | “Appointments will continue to be made in an opaque system where all the stakeholders will not have their voice,” said the attorney general, Mukul Rohatgi. |
| The court appeared to acknowledge the criticism in its judgment, calling for a review of the collegium process in a separate hearing “to make it more responsive to the needs of the people” and “to make it more transparent and in tune with societal needs.” Legal experts have criticized the collegium process as vesting too much discretion in a panel of senior judges to appoint the legal decision makers in the country’s highest courts. | The court appeared to acknowledge the criticism in its judgment, calling for a review of the collegium process in a separate hearing “to make it more responsive to the needs of the people” and “to make it more transparent and in tune with societal needs.” Legal experts have criticized the collegium process as vesting too much discretion in a panel of senior judges to appoint the legal decision makers in the country’s highest courts. |
| The law struck down on Friday would have set up a panel of three judges, the law minister and two “eminent persons” nominated by the chief justice and the central government. Many analysts said it gave too much power to the government. | |