Should politicians have a say in the appointment of judges? The Supreme Court last week struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act as "unconstitutional and void". It viewed that the Act was against the concept of "separation of powers" and thus violated the "basic structure" of the Constitution. To the surprise of none, heated arguments and counter arguments followed the verdict. Critics, including some top ministers, slammed the move severely, with our finance minister going to the extent of saying that democracy in India cannot be "a tyranny of the unelected".

The NJAC Act sought to replace the two-decade old collegium system — under which the judges to the higher courts are appointed by a collegium of judges — with a selection panel comprising, the SC Chief Justice, two other senior most SC judges, Union Minister of Law and Justice and two eminent persons. The commission was proposed by the UPA government, which during its tenure alleged judicial overreach by the SC in many cases, including those related to black money SIT, 2G scam and instant disqualification of MPs and MLAs on conviction for criminal offences. Later, during the current government — which has raised similar allegations in more than one instance, including CAG appointment and environment restrictions — the bill was passed unanimously by both Houses of Parliament.

Most of our politicians, putting aside their narrow party differences, have come together now to claim that the NJAC Act, if implemented, would have made the judicial appointment process more transparent and democratic. Theoretically, it sounds convincing to some extent and some legal experts also support this argument, but there are many who believe that allowing the entry of politicians in the process of judicial appointment will only pollute the judicial system. The SC verdict, they say, is not a setback to parliamentary sovereignty, as claimed by the government, but it has, in contrast, protected the independence of our judiciary from legislative encroachment.

Amid this debate, I am wondering what the general public opinion is on the controversy. What is your view? Do you think that the SC verdict is really against parliamentary sovereignty, or we are just being bamboozled by such talks? Political scientist Harold Laski once famously said that parliamentary system gives the executive an opportunity for tyranny, but our executive seems to be more concerned about tyranny of the judiciary. Is there any real ground for such fears? The framers of our Constitution have preferred a proper balance between parliamentary sovereignty and judiciary supremacy and the SC verdict on NJAC, in my view, is very unlikely to disturb this balance, if not strengthens it.

I invite your opinions.