No urgency in hearing challenge to NJAC validity, says SC

New Delhi, Jan 6 (IANS) The Supreme Court Tuesday declined to hold an early hearing of the batch of petitions challenging the law setting up the National Judicial Appointment Commission, replacing the existing collegium system for the appointment of apex court and high court judges.

"It will come in usual course. We see no urgency," said a bench of Chief Justice H.L.Dattu, Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice R.K. Agrawal as senior counsel and Panthers Party chief Bhim Singh urged the court for an early hearing of the matter.

The Supreme Court Advocate on Record Association, senior counsel and former additional solicitor general Biswajit Bhattacharyya and Bhim Singh have moved the apex court challenging the validity of the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014 and the Constitution (Ninety Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, that provided for the setting up of the panel.

The petitions were moved in the apex court on Monday - first day of its sitting in 2015 after winter break - after President Pranab Mukherjee Dec 31, 2014, gave assent to the Constitution (Ninety Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014.

It has been contended by the petitioners that both the acts were arbitrary, unconstitutional and in breach of the basic structure of the constitution that provides for the separation of powers between the executive, legislature and the judiciary.

The petitioners have contended that the selection of judges through six-member NJAC was an assault on the independence of judiciary in the appointment of judges - which for last more than two decades was being done by the collegium of the five senior-most judges of the Supreme Court headed by the chief justice of India (CJI).

According to the new laws, the NJAC will be headed by the CJI, and include two other senior- most apex court judges, the union law minister and two eminent people as its members.

The petitioners are troubled by the provision which says that any two members of the NJACA could veto the appointment of proposed judges or even the elevation of senior-most judges as the CJI or even chief justice of the high court.