Rijiju supports the retired High Court judge who stated that the Supreme Court has “hijacked” the Constitution.
Sunday, Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju shared interview footage of a former Delhi High Court judge who claimed the Supreme Court “hijacked” the Constitution by opting to nominate its own judges, hence escalating the argument over the appointment of judges to higher judiciary. Rijiju tweeted on Sunday, a day after uploading the video footage of the interview, that “really, the majority of people have similar rational views.”
In the video uploaded by Rijiju on Saturday, retired Delhi High Court Judge RS Sodhi is heard declaring, “For the first time, the Supreme Court has usurped the Constitution. It was said that we would appoint the judges and that the government would play no involvement in this.” On November 23, 2022, the interview was posted to YouTube. Justice Sodhi, who was appointed to the Delhi High Court in 1999 and retired in 2007, is currently a prominent criminal attorney and senior counsel at the Supreme Court.
“The Voice of a Judge… The triumph of Indian democracy is its true beauty. People self-govern through their elected representatives. Elected representatives represent the people’s interests and create legislation. “Our Judiciary is independent and our Constitution is supreme,” Rijiju tweeted on Saturday while sharing the interview. In actuality, the majority of individuals have similar reasonable beliefs. Only those who reject the articles of the Constitution and the will of the people believe they are superior to the Constitution of India, he tweeted early on Sunday.
Later Sunday evening, Rijiju tweeted once more, stating, “All three branches of our government—the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial—must collaborate for the greater good of the nation.”
The Law Minister’s remarks come days after the Supreme Court Collegium, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, made public its reasons for reiterating and the government’s objections to the appointment of at least three advocates as High Court judges.
Saturday, Chandrachud stated that the basic structure theory, which had been questioned by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, was “like the north star,” guiding and providing “definite direction to the interpreters and implementers of the Constitution when the way ahead is unclear.” In Mumbai, he delivered the 18th Nani Palkhivala Memorial Lecture.
Former finance minister P Chidambaram weighed in on the escalating conflict between the executive and the judiciary on Sunday via a tweet: “The Chief Justice of India describes the Basic Structure of the Constitution as the North Star, a guide. Constitutional authorities are comets by this standard. The comets orbit the sun. They should not attempt to exit their orbit and crash into the North Star.”
In the five-minute film published by the Union Law Minister on Twitter, Justice Sodhi stated that the President, based on the opinion of the Council of Ministers, is the legally authorised authority for appointing judges. According to him, the supreme authority is the Parliament. The Deccan Era did not receive a text message response from Justice Sodhi.
“High Courts are independent from the Supreme Court. High Courts are the independent judicial bodies of each state. Now, what’s occurring… The Supreme Court appoints judges of the High Court. And where do judges of the Supreme Court originate from? Superior Courts “Therefore, High Court justices are now always looking up to the Supreme Court and have become servile,” Justice Sodhi stated.
The previous time Rijiju criticised the Collegium system, the Supreme Court voiced reservations without identifying the minister. A bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and AS Oka requested Attorney General R Venkataramani to “resolve the problem” on November 28 of last year to prevent the Court from having to “make a judicial decision.”
“Mr. Attorney General, I have disregarded all press stories, but this comes from a high-ranking source who also conducted an interview… I am not saying anything else. If necessary, we shall reach a conclusion,” the panel had stated.
