Judiciary, executive divide becoming deeper: Mukul Rohatgi

Calling NJAC unconstitutional was one of the reasons for the face-off between executive, Judiciary, says former attorney general Mukul Rohatgi

File photo Mukul Rohatagi
Attorney General Mukul Rohatagi addressing the media outside the Supreme Court after a hearing on the black money case in New Delhi on Wednesday. Rohatagi submitted to the court three sets of documents, which reportedly include names of over 600 peop
Press Trust of India New Delhi
2 min read Last Updated : Jan 09 2020 | 3:37 PM IST
Lamenting that the "divide" between the executive and the judiciary is "becoming deeper day by day", former attorney general Mukul Rohatgi has alleged that the judiciary has gone beyond its brief in the last three decades and needs to draw a "lakshman rekha".

He also criticised the Supreme Court's order striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), calling it unconstitutional and said it was one of the reasons for the face-off between the two pillars of democracy.

Can parliament say "we will decide the cases" as "you (courts) cannot solve" the problem of pending cases? All pillars need to respect each other and draw a 'lakshman rekha', Rohatgi told Rajya Sabha TV in an interview, according to a statement issued by the public broadcaster.

"There has to be a lakshman rekha. It cannot virtually become an overarching situation when courts are running the government, whether you should have music after 10 pm? Is that fair on the part of the courts to decide? Courts need to draw a lakshman rekha," he said.

Rohatgi, who quit as attorney general in June after a three-year tenure, also advocated guidelines for public interest litigations (PILs) as he argued that most of them are motivated because of political and economic rivalries.

PIL is a weapon which needs to be used carefully, he added.

Terming the apex court's decision to annul the NJAC, which sought to give government a say in appointment of judges, as "unconstitutional", he said the law was passed by Parliament and state assemblies and there was no need for the court to strike it down.

He even said that NJAC was one of the major reasons of the face-off between the executive and the judiciary.

"If Parliament says you (courts) keep chiding everybody but you cannot solve the problem of pending cases, then can parliament say we will decide the cases? It will lead to a chaos. It leads to heartburn.

"If Parliament passes laws, they will decide what's good for the people. Courts can't direct Parliament to pass a law," he said.

The divide is becoming deeper and deeper day by day, he said and pitched for dialogue between the judiciary and the executive.
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

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

More From This Section

Topics :Supreme Court

First Published: Nov 29 2017 | 9:42 PM IST

Next Story