As part of its suggestions to improve the collegium system, the government may also tell the apex court that the criteria for selection of judges should be made transparent and the reasons for selecting or rejecting a candidate must be put in public domain.
Sources in the government said today the apex court is likely to be told that to usher in transparency, the Supreme Court collegium should record the reasons for selection or rejection of a candidate and the same should be put in public domain, according to a draft response framed by the government.
The SC collegium decides on the appointment of High Court judges, their transfer and promotion as Chief Justice of a High Court and their elevation to the apex court based on the suggestions made by judges of that high court and SC justices who had earlier worked there.
The government may also tell the apex court to define the criteria for selection of judges for the higher judiciary and it must be part of the memorandum of procedure.
While one memorandum of procedure -- an executive order drafted after the collegium came into being over 20 years ago -- deals with high courts, the other deals with the Supreme Court.
The government may also suggest bringing the decisions of the collegium under the ambit of the Right to Information Act, though its plans to ask the SC to record the decisions of the collegium and put them in public domain goes beyond the requirements of the right to information law.
Law Minister D V Sadananda Gowda today met top law officers and senior functionaries of the Law Ministry to give a final shape to the government's response to Supreme Court seeking suggestions for improving the collegium system. Gowda could also consult some of his senior Cabinet colleagues tonight on the issue.
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi will carry the final word of the government to the Supreme Court tomorrow.
A review petition against the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act and the 99th constitutional amendment Act has also been filed in the apex court by advocate Mathew J Nedumbara.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
