NEW DELHI: The Madhya Pradesh government on Tuesday courted controversy by questioning the veto provision in the NJAC and said the principle of primacy of judiciary must figure in the new system.
The Centre did not support the MP Government stand that veto provision in the NJAC was “bad” and objected to conceding primacy to judicial members in the appointment of judges if three judicial members were unanimous on a name. The NJAC provision provides that any two members of the Commission - comprising the Chief Justice of India, two next senior-most apex court judges, the Law Minister and two eminent people - could veto a name even if it is supported by other four members.
“I don’t agree with it at all. I stick to my argument (supporting the veto provisions and no primacy of judiciary),” Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the constitution bench. The AG was clearing his stand on the submission made by senior counsel K K Venugopal, appearing for the state and told the court that he agreed that the veto proviso was bad and principle of primacy of judiciary must figure.
Criminal Defamation
Senior BJP leader Subrmaniam Swamy and Congress’ Rahul Gandhi came out in unison to assail the criminal defamation law before the Supreme Court which said that lodging of cases for political speech and debates under the controversial provisions should be avoided. “Political debates may not come under the definition of criminal offence for defamation,” a Bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Prafulla C Pant observed. Swamy and Rahul advanced their arguments on the issue by saying that the two provisions have an inhibitive effect on freedom of speech.