Supreme Court of India considered the argument of unanimity, or consensus, in the matter of the appointment of the Central Vigilance
Commissioner and observed as under
“It was further submitted that if unanimity is ruled
out then the very purpose of inducting the Leader
of the Opposition in the process of selection will
stand defeated because if the recommendation of
the Committee were to be arrived at by majority it
would always exclude the Leader of the
Opposition since the Prime Minister and the Home
Minister will always be ad idem.
We find no merit in these submissions. To accept
the contentions advanced on behalf of the
petitioners would mean conferment of a “veto
right” on one of the members of the HPC. To
confer such a power on one of the members would
amount to judicial legislation.”
Commissioner and observed as under
“It was further submitted that if unanimity is ruled
out then the very purpose of inducting the Leader
of the Opposition in the process of selection will
stand defeated because if the recommendation of
the Committee were to be arrived at by majority it
would always exclude the Leader of the
Opposition since the Prime Minister and the Home
Minister will always be ad idem.
We find no merit in these submissions. To accept
the contentions advanced on behalf of the
petitioners would mean conferment of a “veto
right” on one of the members of the HPC. To
confer such a power on one of the members would
amount to judicial legislation.”
No comments:
Post a Comment