Legally Speaking: Nowhere in the world do judges appoint judges: Ex-Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi
In this episode of Legally Speaking, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, Ex-Attorney General of India, states his views freely and frankly on the cases he represented the government's view at Attorney General. Mukul Rohatgi said that he has no doubt that the National Judicial Appointment's Commission (NJAC) was a "flawed judgement".
He also said that nowhere in the world do judges appoint judges, he adds that the Constitution of India envisages that Judges should be appointed to the apex court in consultation of the government, but currently Judiciary is giving "direction" to the government to appoint judges, which the government is forced to "concur" with.
Senior Advocate Rohatgi strongly put forth the point that the view of the court on appointment of judges is legally unsound and untenable. He also says that courts have time and again cross the "Laxman Rekha" into the domain of the executive.
The former Attorney General added that all central governments in the past 25 years except this incumbent government in power have ceded ground to the judiciary. He also adds that judiciary says that when executive fails in its duties the judiciary steps in, but what will happen if Parliament says it wants to overtake the role of judiciary as judiciary itself is flailing in discharging its function.
Mukul Rohatgi also expressed his views on Justice Chemaleshwar and Justice Gogoi stating that the system of appointment of judges needs to be revisited, and also adds that the forest bench of the Supreme Court has not sat for 1.5 years, which has serious security implications for the country.
On the issue of leading lawyers choosing the bench, Mukul Rohatgi shares his views on erstwhile top lawyers like Justice Rohinton Nariman choosing the bench.
For More information on this news visit: www.newsx.com/
Connect with us on Social platform at: / newsxonline
Subscribe to our KZread Channel: / newsxlive
Пікірлер: 31
The way Mr. Rohatgi answered each and every question was hierarchical. He went through every thing in a very sound and precise manner. Great interview. Got to know a lot.
In any Official Assignments, can the Head of Department be selected by the Juniors on completion of term? No; not at all. The responsibility rests with the appropriate Authorities to which Department belongs. Such Lawlessness in legal framework is itself victim of legal mind.
Forest Bench.... Must
Excellent programme. Keep doing more of these.
Comparing the international human rights and usa and uk and india fundamental human rights. We see our fundamental rights are curtailed. Legislation entered into public human rights ,inspite of there is limit on legislation. We see original constitution in 1949, Article13 clearly mentioned that no law should be brought against fundamental human rights especially part 3 constitution. But change is taken place in 13 which is against fundamental human rights
india need ALL INDIA JUDICIAL SERVICE
It was a pleasure to hear to Mr.Rohatgi. But please change the anchor.
Thanks a lot
Somewhere, they have to....
International human rights are to be followed which are to be known to us.
The anchor is not allowing the speaker to speak. We want to hear the views of the speaker and not the anchor.
@UPAKHOSALA
2 жыл бұрын
Well Ranjendran this is problem with almost all INDIANS, we ask questions but seldom we posses the patience to hear the full Answer, just because the Interview is given by an Famous Advocate that's why u r noticing this fallacy
Great Sir
The anchor should be someone having basic legal knowledge
Amazing show. Thank you for bringing this out
No where in world inefficient advocates like GPs, AGPs & PP r elevated to judges.
No where in the world ,in democratic countries, curtailment human rights not happened. but in india,it is happened. In 1949 we adopted constitution with protected shield on human rights in article 13 of indian constitution but article 13 protection shield is disturbed by adding article 368 in 13 article which is unconstitutional and against to the basic structure of constitution. Legislation entered into human rights in spite of , shield protector given by article13.
Our indian constitution which is adopted in 1949 by people But nehru brought a bill 1951 to curtail fundamental human rights In this way no other country done .it
Great difference nudging and steam rolling. Mukul❤️Rohatgi
Usa and uk has fundamental human rights. But they did not curtail fundamental right
One of the best advocate of India.✌✌
Erstwhile justice karnan has been too some extent prejudiced for being whistleblower.. it is true to some extent that when he issued judgement against supreme court judges it was erroneous however the initial letter issued by him to government to question corruption was to be thoroughly enquired vide retired judges and was not to be trampled .
Consultation or taking into cofidence, vetoing by whom, executive',s undue interference, ___all r there and not a single brain has come out so far with a logical end keeping in view the judicial impartiality which is paramount
Very great thanking heartfully receive case even central supreme ordered behalf of ap mp way law and order injured harm staging made hope less injured mind body spirit know struggle of create hope less came from many much injured body mind harm staged having power much body injured body harm no body has right proper reason harm having power created slavery hope less ap government way taking thier contrlling dragged women dragged in home or roads police department having power sellect thier hands locked house arrest warrant freedom less boundery unescapble responcibility spoiled mind body requesting have to make them lession central government and state central government wearing bangles sarees even I staged dragged by helpers doctors technicens children faithless family numbers the same way faith less rowdy sheeters power sellect thier hands on me there is no garantee even life threat in home staging shopping going out power cutting even I harmed created hard treatement create high drama having power sellect thier hands on me 🙆♀️ know thier criminal activity high court cid some of Medea medicle department ap government high drama having power sellect thier hands 🙆♀️🙏🙋🙋👌🏻👌🏻🙋♀️🙋♀️👌🏻👌🏻🙏🙏
Sir will of state legislature and Parliament should not be allowed to prevail in matter of appointment of Hon'ble Judges. There will be ni Independence of judiciary. Is not it?
Ye vohi jisne 2z valo ka virodha kiya pesa mila unki parvi kari
Fair enough and even it has some truth..but the politicians have to shoulder most if not all the blame for giving this opportunity to the judiciary by trying to see that favorable judges are appointed and doing appointment in a non-transparent manner thereby creating insecurity among higher judiciary regarding independence of judiciary and leading to this present unfortunate impasse.
@amyvoyager
4 жыл бұрын
checks and balances are required so none of the organs of government will become despotic.. Not to forget we have grave issue leashed of lobby in judiciary be it subservient to ruling party or the opposition political parties. Moreover, not to forget our legal system is grappled with favouritism and nepotism too . Who can forget nedumpura, advocate has been jeopardised recently for questioning nepotism and favouritism and was booked for contempt of court. There are many instances which reflect the deep rooted issues with judiciary.
LONG LIVE INDIAN DEMOCRACY AND ITS INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY.