The judiciary does not lay down the constitution but only interprets it and corrects any aberrations, in tune with the spirit of the constitution. For a thriving democracy, an independent judiciary is absolutely necessary.
Today, the Supreme Court struck down a law permitting the involvement of the government in appointing judges saying that only judges should appoint fellow judges to maintain the independence of the judiciary.
This is a perfectly valid point but the reason given by the Supreme Court is absolutely uncalled for.
The SC on Friday said executive participation in National Judicial Appointment Committee (NJAC) could lead to the exclusion of people on grounds of sexual orientation, as it doubted if the Modi government would appoint an LGBT community member as an SC or HC judge.
How can the Supreme Court make assumptions and base its decisions accordingly?
It obviously had in mind the political dispensation's opposition to legalizing consensual same-sex relations between adults, though it didn't specifically mention this in the judgment.
The SC had in December 2013 struck down Delhi HC's order legalizing consensual same-sex relations between consenting adults.
Writing a separate judgment quashing NJAC, Justice Madan B Lokur said: "Australia and South Africa have had gay judges. The present political executive would perhaps not permit the appointment of a gay person to the bench."
He was discussing how a person's personal traits could become ground for his her rejection, if the political executive with strong views on personal orientation participated in NJAC.
If the Court feels that a person from LGBT community will make a good judge, let it recommend for their inclusion in the judiciary but passing personal observations on a democratically elected government is absolutely uncalled for.
Australia and South Africa have had gay judges. But they have a different culture too. We are Indians and blindly aping the western world in each and every thing will only lead to doom.
