In its detailed judgment, the Supreme Court has held that the Judicial Commission (JC) is the sole body to judge the technical expertise of a nominee for appointment to higher judiciary as it comprised people having spent decades in the legal field. The judgment does not rule out the need for the Parliamentary Committee (PC) which can object to a nominee on account of disabilities unrelated to his judicial calibre. In the recent case, whatever objections were made by the PC to the appointment of six judges were based on the views and comments of the concerned high court chief justices, a matter presumably settled by the JC. The disabilities that come under the purview of the PC could be in the domain of the nominees honesty, integrity and independence. The PC would, however, have to substantiate the objections by facts while the JC would be the final arbiter.
The debate over the courts judgment is likely to continue. Some would argue that the order has struck down the spirit of the 19th Amendment, adopted after accommodating the concerns of the SC. Others would maintain that it was necessary to put an end to political intervention in judicial appointments.
The issue of liberating the judiciary from the hold of the administration is in line with the spirit of the times. But should legal competence be the sole criterion for the appointment of the judges of superior courts? Are there no other disabilities other than moral turpitude and political partisanship? Does it not matter if a judge is wedded to outmoded values of a bygone era like honour killing and a lower place for women and minorities in society? Is it not important for a judge to be aware of concerns like environment, gender equality and human rights? This leads one to think that, while ensuring judicial independence, there has to be an element of extra judicial oversight also so that from one extreme we do not go into another extreme like a pendulum.
