Supreme Court qualifies the new central law on the courts of replica of the previous one invalidated by it | India News

NEW DELHI: Calling the provisions of the new court law “replicas” of those struck down earlier, the Supreme Court told the Center on Monday that although it has the power to withdraw the basis for a judgment by adopting new laws, they cannot be “directly contradictory” to its verdicts.
“The legislator can withdraw the basis for the Supreme Court ruling. But you cannot pass a law which directly contradicts the Supreme Court ruling,” said a special bench made up of Chief Justice NV Ramana and judges DY Chandrachud and L Nagesewara Rao.
The law concerns the terms and conditions of service and tenure of members of various courts and reinstates some of the provisions repealed by a bench led by Judge Rao recently on arguments, including one filed by the Madras Bar Association.
The court, criticizing the fact that the law was acquitted without any discussion in parliament and reinstated the provisions that were struck down, said that “the law is practically a replica of the provisions that were struck down in Madras Bar cases – II and III “.
“There are two problems, one is to make sure that the appointments that are being made are made immediately, and the second is the rule of law. We cannot have this situation where we have the Association of Madras Bar 1, 2, 3, 4 and virtually, the same law is being enacted. This will continue. Next time we repeal it will be a new law identical to the first, “said the CJI.
“In a lighter vein, we mean that we trust and respect you (Solicitor General) and you will never advise the government to pass a law like this,” the judiciary said.
Some bureaucrats could be there to advise the government to legislate to overturn the judgment, he said.
“They will say pass another law if they pass judgment. This is the way bureaucracy works, we understand. But the government has to take a call now. It is very serious. Although we are very upset, that’s all we want to say right now, ”CJI said, speaking on behalf of the bench.
The highest court also requested a response from the Center by September 13 on a batch of petitions, including one filed by Congress leader Jairam Ramesh challenging the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Courts Reform Act 2021, which was passed in the recent monsoon session of Parliament and received presidential assent on August 13.
The bench said it would also pass ordinances on the new legislation next Monday.
“We don’t care about subsequent legislation. We will not give them much credit. My brother Nageswara Rao had expressed his point of view on the legislation. ) despite this, they do not honor the judgment. What is it, “said the judiciary.
The bench, however, recognized the legislative power of the legislature saying that a new law can always be introduced by removing the basis for a judgment, laws, which are contrary to verdicts, cannot be promulgated repeatedly.
“For example, if we consider that the state legislature did not have the power to levy taxes because the legislative competence rested with the Parliament, then the Parliament can pass a law, validating the collection of the tax”, said the bench while giving an illustration.
Senior lawyer Vikas Singh, representing another petitioner, said the new law aims to enact the same provisions.
The judiciary took note of the comments of lead lawyer AM Singhvi, representing Ramesh, that the new law contains the same provisions.
“You correctly said that there are four provisions. I’ll highlight which ones – a person under 50 is not eligible for nomination as chair or member. Directly contrary to judgment! Second, the selection committee will recommend a two-name panel for nomination and the central government will make a preference decision within three months. Directly contradictory. Third, the term of office of the chair and members will be set at four years. Directly contrary. And fourth, the compensation awarded to the president will be the same as a central government official with the same salary as the president. Once again, the direct opposite, ”said Judge Chandrachud.
“There is no point in debating. Everyone knows the law, including the government, the signatories. Instead of wasting our time. We are not interested in any confrontation,” said the judiciary, adjourning the case to the September 13.
The government has been asked to make some court appointments by then.
Ramesh, in August, asked the highest court to challenge the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Courts Reform Act 2021.
The congressional leader, in his plea, said he had filed the public interest motion challenging the clause 3 (1) clause as well as sections 3 (7), 5 and 7 (1) of the law of 2021 on the reform of the court as being ultra-violates articles 14, 21 and 50 of the Constitution.
“The petitioner is aggrieved by the contested law abrogating the principle of judicial independence, and its adoption being a deliberate attempt to overturn the judgment of this court in the Madras Bar Association v Union of India case, which set aside provisions identical to those challenged, without removing the basis for the judgment, ”the petition indicates.
He said that in August 2021, the Courts Reform Act 2021 was passed by both Houses of Parliament and received Presidential assent on August 13, 2021.
“The Courts Act which repeals the Courts Ordinance entered into force retroactively to April 4, 2021 and was enacted among other things with the aim” of abolishing certain courts and authorities and providing a mechanism for direct recourse to the court. of commerce or of the high court. “And also reduce the burden on the public treasury,” said his plea.
The plea indicated that the challenged law contained various provisions of a nature identical to those of the Courts Order which was overturned by that court on July 14.

Comments are closed.