Conversations over judges’ appointment, 130th Constitutional amendment dominate SRM law symposium

It was a split verdict as eminent jurists put forth their arguments on procedures for judges’ appointments and other topics, including the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill, at a day-long symposium on Saturday (September 6).

The National Judicial Appointments Commission, which was brought in by a Constitutional amendment in 2014 and was subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court as it violated the basic structure of the Constitution, was one of the focal points of the deliberations at Lexposium 2025, organised by the SRM School of Law in association with The Hindu.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that the court had ruled against it since it found that judicial independence was part of the basic structure. “There is no such thing as a majoritarianism simpliciter in a Constitutional republic,” he said. In the current political scenario, Mr. Singhvi rued what he called the weakening of non-institutional pillars of Indian democracy, including secularism, federalism; and the weaking of non-institutional virtues, including fraternity; besides the weakening of institutional pillars, including the judiciary and media.

Former Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand said there was a need to bring accountability in both the selection and removal of judges. Senior advocate Nalin Kohli, however, said he would prefer a balanced approach to the issue, and that the same system had produced excellent judges and questionable judges as well.

Senior advocate Pradeep Rai said any system replacing the Collegium should be free from political interference. “The umpire has to be neutral,” Mr. Rai said.

On the Bill seeking the removal of Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and Ministers if they are imprisoned for 30 days, Mr. Singhvi said the motive was to control, overawe, threaten, intimidate, scare, and create an ambience against everybody who was in any way opposed to the ruling party, including its allies. “A 31-day arrest amounts to letting a constable nullify the essence of electoral democracy,” Mr. Singhvi said.

Speaking on the topic ‘Realising Justice for All’, Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain said that the fear of the abuse of a law was no ground to challenge the validity of the law. It would go to the Joint Parliamentary Committee, and then be tabled before the two Houses for voting.