The Centre today wrapped up its arguments backing the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) asserting that the collegium system had recommended names that were "not worthy of acceptance".
Concluding his arguments in the Supreme Court, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi promised that undeserving appointments would not pass through the NJAC while claiming that the collegium chose a person who hardly delivered judgements and later went on become a judge of the apex court.
"It is the collegium system which brings in some judges. I do not want to name. They did not deliver judgements. In the High Court there was one judge who delivered only five judgements ... And became a SC judge," he told a five-judge bench headed by Justice J S Khehar which is hearing pleas challenging the validity of the NJAC Act.
"It is the collegium that gave him (the former judge) laurels after laurels and brought him here (apex court) and sent him to NHRC," he said adding that some names were "not worthy of acceptance".
The bench, also comprising justices J Chelameswar, M B Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Adarsh Kumar Goel, said that it was on "due representation" but the government later gave him the posting in the NHRC.
"One case cannot become the rule. But after his retirement the Government of India has appointed him to an important post in NHRC. Those who come here should have better understanding and it is not that anyone can handle it. Now it is tough to work here as we have to handle many things at a time," it said.
"On the basis of the analysis, it is humbly submitted that the NJAC Act is entirely constitutional and this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to uphold its validity," Rohatgi said while wrapping up his five-day-long arguments in the case.
He also rubbished the contention of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), one of the petitioners against the new law, that the enabling 99th Constitutional amendment should have been brought before the NJAC Act.
"The law comes into force from the date of notification and the manner and parliamentary procedure cannot be questioned," he said.
Rohatgi also said the tax payers had a right to know the quality of judges getting appointed.
"A tax payer may say that I pay your (judges) salaries, I have a right to know who is going to be a judge", he said, adding "a judge who has given not more than 50 judgements in 15 years during his stint with various High courts cannot be elevated to the top court.
