Even as the government justifies the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) as a transparent replacement for the collegium system of appointing judges, the Supreme Court has decided to hear a petition questioning the “unaccountable and non-transparent” manner of appointment of the government’s top law officer, the Attorney-General of India.
This petition was filed last year in the Supreme Court by Vibhor Anand, a 25-year-old law student.
On May 20, Mr. Anand received a letter from the Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court, stating that his matter is listed before a judge in his chambers on July 10, and then will be taken up for hearing.
The petition, which makes Attorney-General (A-G) Mukul Rohatgi a party along with the Union of India, contends that the appointment of the top law officer has been based on a “pick-and-choose” policy at the behest of political masters.
The petition says only a person who has all the qualifications to be a Supreme Court judge can be considered for appointment as A-G.
“The qualifications required for appointment of a Supreme Court judge and the Attorney-General of India are the same, but the procedure for appointment adopted is completely different. The office of a Supreme Court judge is fully accountable, transparent, with oath, under public scrutiny and with an age bar, whereas the office of the Attorney-General is completely unaccountable, non-transparent, without oath, without any age bar,” it says.
