In a jolt to the Narendra Modi government, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the Centre's plea for referring the matter challenging the constitutional validity of the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) to the 11-judge bench.
The bench also passed an interim order for the additional high court judges, whose confirmation is due during the pendency of the matter, saying "they will continue in office for three months."
Following repeated submissions of Centre's lawyer attorney general Mukul Rohatgi, a five-judge constitution bench took a break during the course of hearing of the NJAC matter and said, "It would not refer the matter to an 11-judge bench."
The bench headed by Justice J S Khehar asked the Centre and other parties, including petitioners challenging NJAC validity, to conclude arguments on merits.
Due to abolition of collegium system and delay in constitution of NJAC after Chief Justice of India refused to be part of the commission till the matter in the court is disposed of, the bench passed an interim order saying, "additional high court judges, whose present term is due to end in near future, will continue in office for three months."
Earlier during the day, senior advocate F S Nariman, appearing for Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, sought a stay on the operation of National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) on the ground that in any case, the new system was not functioning as the Chief Justice of India has not been participating in it.
Noted jurist Ram Jethmalani, who was also arguing against the NJAC Act, said issue of referring the matter to a larger bench was an exercise in futility as it was nothing but "delaying tactics" by the Centre.
Rohatgi informed the bench that he will argue on the merit of the case on next date of hearing. The court fixed June 6 as the date for further hearing of the case.
The bench is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the NJAC Act replacing the collegium system for appointment of judges for Supreme Court and high courts.
The government took a stand that the nine-judge bench, which had interpreted Article 124 of the Constitution to evolve the collegium system, should be re-considered as the interpretation was "wrong".
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}