Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar on Friday revisited the scrapped National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), arguing that if the framework overwhelmingly endorsed by Parliament had remained in place, concerns over judicial accountability might have been resolved.
Dhankhar’s remarks came after Congress leader Jairam Ramesh raised the issue of cash being discovered at the residence of a Delhi High Court judge. Without directly naming the NJAC, Dhankhar emphasized, “That historic legislation endorsed by this Parliament with unprecedented consensual support unknown to the parliamentary history of this country dealt with the malaise very severely. If the malaise had been dealt with, perhaps we would not have countenanced such kind of issues. What bothers me is that the incident happened and did not immediately surface.”
Reflecting on the 2014 passage of NJAC, he reminded the House of its broad political support. “You all will recollect if the mechanism which was passed by this House with near unanimity, with no dissension, only one abstention in Rajya Sabha, all political parties converging, going in for the initiative of the government. I wish to find out the status of that which emanated from the Indian Parliament made sacrosanct by the endorsement of 16 state assemblies in the country and signed by the Hon’ble President under Article 111 of the Constitution.”
The Supreme Court had struck down NJAC in 2015, arguing that the judiciary must remain independent and free from a “web of indebtedness” to the government.
Dhankhar also raised concerns over the slow revelation of the cash-at-judge’s-residence controversy. “If it happens with a politician, he becomes a target, a bureaucrat, an industrialist immediately and therefore systemic response which is transparent, accountable, effective, I am sure will be on the way.”
Additionally, he addressed the impeachment petition filed by 55 MPs against Allahabad High Court judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav over alleged hate speech. While verifying the petition, he discovered a discrepancy—one MP’s signature appeared twice, with the MP in question denying having signed at all.
“I am seized of a representation by 55 members of this House, and I have taken all necessary steps to get their verification. First mail was sent to all of them, and the good thing is most of the members have responded positively, helping me perform my duty. Some members are yet to do.”
A follow-up email has been sent to the remaining MPs for confirmation. “I have taken all procedural steps but I must share with you one concern that is engaging my attention. Of the 55 members who signed the representation, a member’s signature appears on two occasions and the member concerned has denied his signature. Now I do not wish to get into this act which may graduate to culpability to a higher level. If the number is above 50, I will proceed accordingly.”
