Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/supreme-court-won039t-revisit-collegium-system-18805/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/supreme-court-won039t-revisit-collegium-system-18805/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/supreme-court-won039t-revisit-collegium-system-18805/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/supreme-court-won039t-revisit-collegium-system-18805/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ffe247342c3-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ffe247342c3-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67ffe247342c3-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ffe247342c3-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ffe247342c3-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ffe247342c3-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ffe247342c3-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67ffe247342c3-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67ffe247342c3-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 18671,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Supreme Court won&amp;#039;t revisit collegium system&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;CJI questions Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file petition&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In April 2010, a two-judge Bench, after hearing Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati and amicus curiae A.K. Ganguly, posted before a larger Bench the petition filed by Suraz India Trust seeking review of the collegium system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accordingly, the matter was on Monday posted before a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir and Justices J. Chelameswar and Vikaramjit Sen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the collegium system, the executive has no say in judicial appointments. The recommendations of the collegium of judges are final and binding on the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Suraz India Trust sought reconsideration of the proposition of law settled in the judgment in the case of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association and others vs. the Union of India and others in 1993.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the resumed hearing, Mr. Ganguly referred to the questions framed by the two-judge Bench for consideration by the larger Bench. However, the CJI, without going into merits, questioned the Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file the petition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The questions framed were: will the two decisions of this court (1993 and 1998) really amount to amending Article 124 (2) of the Constitution? Is there any &amp;lsquo;collegium&amp;rsquo; system in the Constitution for appointing Supreme Court or High Court judges? Can the Constitution be amended by a judicial verdict or only by Parliament in accordance with Article 368? In the constitutional scheme, can the judges be appointed by discussions and consensus between the judiciary and the executive, or can the judiciary alone make the appointments? Does the word &amp;lsquo;consultation&amp;rsquo; in Article 224 mean &amp;lsquo;concurrence&amp;rsquo;?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By judicial interpretation, can words in the Constitution be made redundant, as appears to have been done in the aforesaid two decisions which have made consultation with High Court judges redundant while appointing a Supreme Court judge despite the fact that it is permissible on the clear language of Article 124(2)? Can the clear language of Article 124(2) be altered by judicial verdicts and instead of allowing the President to consult such judges of the Supreme Court (including even junior judges) as he deems necessary, can only the CJI and four seniormost judges be consulted while appointing a Supreme Court judge? Is there any convention that the President is bound by the advice of the CJI and (assuming there is one) can it prevail over the clear language of Article 124(2)? Has the CJI&amp;rsquo;s opinion any primacy in the appointments? Should the two decisions be overruled by a larger Bench?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;In collegium system, executive has no say in judicial appointments&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two-judge framed questions for consideration by larger Bench&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 8 January, 2013, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/supreme-court-wont-revisit-collegium-system/article4285190.ece&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;supreme-court-won039t-revisit-collegium-system-18805&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 18805,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 18671,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court won&amp;#039;t revisit collegium system&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Law and Justice&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Hindu

CJI questions Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file petition

The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

In April 2010, a two-judge...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;CJI questions Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file petition&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In April 2010, a two-judge Bench, after hearing Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati and amicus curiae A.K. Ganguly, posted before a larger Bench the petition filed by Suraz India Trust seeking review of the collegium system.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Accordingly, the matter was on Monday posted before a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir and Justices J. Chelameswar and Vikaramjit Sen.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under the collegium system, the executive has no say in judicial appointments. The recommendations of the collegium of judges are final and binding on the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Suraz India Trust sought reconsideration of the proposition of law settled in the judgment in the case of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association and others vs. the Union of India and others in 1993.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;During the resumed hearing, Mr. Ganguly referred to the questions framed by the two-judge Bench for consideration by the larger Bench. However, the CJI, without going into merits, questioned the Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file the petition.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The questions framed were: will the two decisions of this court (1993 and 1998) really amount to amending Article 124 (2) of the Constitution? Is there any &amp;lsquo;collegium&amp;rsquo; system in the Constitution for appointing Supreme Court or High Court judges? Can the Constitution be amended by a judicial verdict or only by Parliament in accordance with Article 368? In the constitutional scheme, can the judges be appointed by discussions and consensus between the judiciary and the executive, or can the judiciary alone make the appointments? Does the word &amp;lsquo;consultation&amp;rsquo; in Article 224 mean &amp;lsquo;concurrence&amp;rsquo;?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;By judicial interpretation, can words in the Constitution be made redundant, as appears to have been done in the aforesaid two decisions which have made consultation with High Court judges redundant while appointing a Supreme Court judge despite the fact that it is permissible on the clear language of Article 124(2)? Can the clear language of Article 124(2) be altered by judicial verdicts and instead of allowing the President to consult such judges of the Supreme Court (including even junior judges) as he deems necessary, can only the CJI and four seniormost judges be consulted while appointing a Supreme Court judge? Is there any convention that the President is bound by the advice of the CJI and (assuming there is one) can it prevail over the clear language of Article 124(2)? Has the CJI&amp;rsquo;s opinion any primacy in the appointments? Should the two decisions be overruled by a larger Bench?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;In collegium system, executive has no say in judicial appointments&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Two-judge framed questions for consideration by larger Bench&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 18671,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Supreme Court won&amp;#039;t revisit collegium system&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;CJI questions Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file petition&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In April 2010, a two-judge Bench, after hearing Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati and amicus curiae A.K. Ganguly, posted before a larger Bench the petition filed by Suraz India Trust seeking review of the collegium system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accordingly, the matter was on Monday posted before a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir and Justices J. Chelameswar and Vikaramjit Sen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the collegium system, the executive has no say in judicial appointments. The recommendations of the collegium of judges are final and binding on the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Suraz India Trust sought reconsideration of the proposition of law settled in the judgment in the case of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association and others vs. the Union of India and others in 1993.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the resumed hearing, Mr. Ganguly referred to the questions framed by the two-judge Bench for consideration by the larger Bench. However, the CJI, without going into merits, questioned the Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file the petition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The questions framed were: will the two decisions of this court (1993 and 1998) really amount to amending Article 124 (2) of the Constitution? Is there any &amp;lsquo;collegium&amp;rsquo; system in the Constitution for appointing Supreme Court or High Court judges? Can the Constitution be amended by a judicial verdict or only by Parliament in accordance with Article 368? In the constitutional scheme, can the judges be appointed by discussions and consensus between the judiciary and the executive, or can the judiciary alone make the appointments? Does the word &amp;lsquo;consultation&amp;rsquo; in Article 224 mean &amp;lsquo;concurrence&amp;rsquo;?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By judicial interpretation, can words in the Constitution be made redundant, as appears to have been done in the aforesaid two decisions which have made consultation with High Court judges redundant while appointing a Supreme Court judge despite the fact that it is permissible on the clear language of Article 124(2)? Can the clear language of Article 124(2) be altered by judicial verdicts and instead of allowing the President to consult such judges of the Supreme Court (including even junior judges) as he deems necessary, can only the CJI and four seniormost judges be consulted while appointing a Supreme Court judge? Is there any convention that the President is bound by the advice of the CJI and (assuming there is one) can it prevail over the clear language of Article 124(2)? Has the CJI&amp;rsquo;s opinion any primacy in the appointments? Should the two decisions be overruled by a larger Bench?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;In collegium system, executive has no say in judicial appointments&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two-judge framed questions for consideration by larger Bench&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 8 January, 2013, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/supreme-court-wont-revisit-collegium-system/article4285190.ece&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;supreme-court-won039t-revisit-collegium-system-18805&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 18805,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 18671
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court won&amp;#039;t revisit collegium system&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Law and Justice&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Hindu

CJI questions Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file petition

The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

In April 2010, a two-judge...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;CJI questions Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file petition&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In April 2010, a two-judge Bench, after hearing Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati and amicus curiae A.K. Ganguly, posted before a larger Bench the petition filed by Suraz India Trust seeking review of the collegium system.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Accordingly, the matter was on Monday posted before a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir and Justices J. Chelameswar and Vikaramjit Sen.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under the collegium system, the executive has no say in judicial appointments. The recommendations of the collegium of judges are final and binding on the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Suraz India Trust sought reconsideration of the proposition of law settled in the judgment in the case of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association and others vs. the Union of India and others in 1993.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;During the resumed hearing, Mr. Ganguly referred to the questions framed by the two-judge Bench for consideration by the larger Bench. However, the CJI, without going into merits, questioned the Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file the petition.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The questions framed were: will the two decisions of this court (1993 and 1998) really amount to amending Article 124 (2) of the Constitution? Is there any &amp;lsquo;collegium&amp;rsquo; system in the Constitution for appointing Supreme Court or High Court judges? Can the Constitution be amended by a judicial verdict or only by Parliament in accordance with Article 368? In the constitutional scheme, can the judges be appointed by discussions and consensus between the judiciary and the executive, or can the judiciary alone make the appointments? Does the word &amp;lsquo;consultation&amp;rsquo; in Article 224 mean &amp;lsquo;concurrence&amp;rsquo;?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;By judicial interpretation, can words in the Constitution be made redundant, as appears to have been done in the aforesaid two decisions which have made consultation with High Court judges redundant while appointing a Supreme Court judge despite the fact that it is permissible on the clear language of Article 124(2)? Can the clear language of Article 124(2) be altered by judicial verdicts and instead of allowing the President to consult such judges of the Supreme Court (including even junior judges) as he deems necessary, can only the CJI and four seniormost judges be consulted while appointing a Supreme Court judge? Is there any convention that the President is bound by the advice of the CJI and (assuming there is one) can it prevail over the clear language of Article 124(2)? Has the CJI&amp;rsquo;s opinion any primacy in the appointments? Should the two decisions be overruled by a larger Bench?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;In collegium system, executive has no say in judicial appointments&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Two-judge framed questions for consideration by larger Bench&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/supreme-court-won039t-revisit-collegium-system-18805.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court won&#039;t revisit collegium system | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Hindu

CJI questions Trust&rsquo;s locus standi to file petition

The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

In April 2010, a two-judge..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Supreme Court won&#039;t revisit collegium system</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Hindu<br /><br /><em>CJI questions Trust&rsquo;s locus standi to file petition<br /></em><br />The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.<br /><br />In April 2010, a two-judge Bench, after hearing Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati and amicus curiae A.K. Ganguly, posted before a larger Bench the petition filed by Suraz India Trust seeking review of the collegium system.<br /><br />Accordingly, the matter was on Monday posted before a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir and Justices J. Chelameswar and Vikaramjit Sen.<br /><br />Under the collegium system, the executive has no say in judicial appointments. The recommendations of the collegium of judges are final and binding on the government.<br /><br />The Suraz India Trust sought reconsideration of the proposition of law settled in the judgment in the case of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association and others vs. the Union of India and others in 1993.<br /><br />During the resumed hearing, Mr. Ganguly referred to the questions framed by the two-judge Bench for consideration by the larger Bench. However, the CJI, without going into merits, questioned the Trust&rsquo;s locus standi to file the petition.<br /><br />The questions framed were: will the two decisions of this court (1993 and 1998) really amount to amending Article 124 (2) of the Constitution? Is there any &lsquo;collegium&rsquo; system in the Constitution for appointing Supreme Court or High Court judges? Can the Constitution be amended by a judicial verdict or only by Parliament in accordance with Article 368? In the constitutional scheme, can the judges be appointed by discussions and consensus between the judiciary and the executive, or can the judiciary alone make the appointments? Does the word &lsquo;consultation&rsquo; in Article 224 mean &lsquo;concurrence&rsquo;?<br /><br />By judicial interpretation, can words in the Constitution be made redundant, as appears to have been done in the aforesaid two decisions which have made consultation with High Court judges redundant while appointing a Supreme Court judge despite the fact that it is permissible on the clear language of Article 124(2)? Can the clear language of Article 124(2) be altered by judicial verdicts and instead of allowing the President to consult such judges of the Supreme Court (including even junior judges) as he deems necessary, can only the CJI and four seniormost judges be consulted while appointing a Supreme Court judge? Is there any convention that the President is bound by the advice of the CJI and (assuming there is one) can it prevail over the clear language of Article 124(2)? Has the CJI&rsquo;s opinion any primacy in the appointments? Should the two decisions be overruled by a larger Bench?<br /><br /><em>In collegium system, executive has no say in judicial appointments<br /><br />Two-judge framed questions for consideration by larger Bench</em></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ffe247342c3-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ffe247342c3-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67ffe247342c3-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ffe247342c3-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ffe247342c3-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ffe247342c3-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ffe247342c3-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67ffe247342c3-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67ffe247342c3-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 18671,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Supreme Court won&amp;#039;t revisit collegium system&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;CJI questions Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file petition&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In April 2010, a two-judge Bench, after hearing Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati and amicus curiae A.K. Ganguly, posted before a larger Bench the petition filed by Suraz India Trust seeking review of the collegium system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accordingly, the matter was on Monday posted before a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir and Justices J. Chelameswar and Vikaramjit Sen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the collegium system, the executive has no say in judicial appointments. The recommendations of the collegium of judges are final and binding on the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Suraz India Trust sought reconsideration of the proposition of law settled in the judgment in the case of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association and others vs. the Union of India and others in 1993.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the resumed hearing, Mr. Ganguly referred to the questions framed by the two-judge Bench for consideration by the larger Bench. However, the CJI, without going into merits, questioned the Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file the petition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The questions framed were: will the two decisions of this court (1993 and 1998) really amount to amending Article 124 (2) of the Constitution? Is there any &amp;lsquo;collegium&amp;rsquo; system in the Constitution for appointing Supreme Court or High Court judges? Can the Constitution be amended by a judicial verdict or only by Parliament in accordance with Article 368? In the constitutional scheme, can the judges be appointed by discussions and consensus between the judiciary and the executive, or can the judiciary alone make the appointments? Does the word &amp;lsquo;consultation&amp;rsquo; in Article 224 mean &amp;lsquo;concurrence&amp;rsquo;?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By judicial interpretation, can words in the Constitution be made redundant, as appears to have been done in the aforesaid two decisions which have made consultation with High Court judges redundant while appointing a Supreme Court judge despite the fact that it is permissible on the clear language of Article 124(2)? Can the clear language of Article 124(2) be altered by judicial verdicts and instead of allowing the President to consult such judges of the Supreme Court (including even junior judges) as he deems necessary, can only the CJI and four seniormost judges be consulted while appointing a Supreme Court judge? Is there any convention that the President is bound by the advice of the CJI and (assuming there is one) can it prevail over the clear language of Article 124(2)? Has the CJI&amp;rsquo;s opinion any primacy in the appointments? Should the two decisions be overruled by a larger Bench?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;In collegium system, executive has no say in judicial appointments&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two-judge framed questions for consideration by larger Bench&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 8 January, 2013, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/supreme-court-wont-revisit-collegium-system/article4285190.ece&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;supreme-court-won039t-revisit-collegium-system-18805&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 18805,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 18671,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court won&amp;#039;t revisit collegium system&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Law and Justice&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Hindu

CJI questions Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file petition

The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

In April 2010, a two-judge...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;CJI questions Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file petition&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In April 2010, a two-judge Bench, after hearing Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati and amicus curiae A.K. Ganguly, posted before a larger Bench the petition filed by Suraz India Trust seeking review of the collegium system.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Accordingly, the matter was on Monday posted before a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir and Justices J. Chelameswar and Vikaramjit Sen.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under the collegium system, the executive has no say in judicial appointments. The recommendations of the collegium of judges are final and binding on the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Suraz India Trust sought reconsideration of the proposition of law settled in the judgment in the case of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association and others vs. the Union of India and others in 1993.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;During the resumed hearing, Mr. Ganguly referred to the questions framed by the two-judge Bench for consideration by the larger Bench. However, the CJI, without going into merits, questioned the Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file the petition.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The questions framed were: will the two decisions of this court (1993 and 1998) really amount to amending Article 124 (2) of the Constitution? Is there any &amp;lsquo;collegium&amp;rsquo; system in the Constitution for appointing Supreme Court or High Court judges? Can the Constitution be amended by a judicial verdict or only by Parliament in accordance with Article 368? In the constitutional scheme, can the judges be appointed by discussions and consensus between the judiciary and the executive, or can the judiciary alone make the appointments? Does the word &amp;lsquo;consultation&amp;rsquo; in Article 224 mean &amp;lsquo;concurrence&amp;rsquo;?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;By judicial interpretation, can words in the Constitution be made redundant, as appears to have been done in the aforesaid two decisions which have made consultation with High Court judges redundant while appointing a Supreme Court judge despite the fact that it is permissible on the clear language of Article 124(2)? Can the clear language of Article 124(2) be altered by judicial verdicts and instead of allowing the President to consult such judges of the Supreme Court (including even junior judges) as he deems necessary, can only the CJI and four seniormost judges be consulted while appointing a Supreme Court judge? Is there any convention that the President is bound by the advice of the CJI and (assuming there is one) can it prevail over the clear language of Article 124(2)? Has the CJI&amp;rsquo;s opinion any primacy in the appointments? Should the two decisions be overruled by a larger Bench?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;In collegium system, executive has no say in judicial appointments&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Two-judge framed questions for consideration by larger Bench&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 18671,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Supreme Court won&amp;#039;t revisit collegium system&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;CJI questions Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file petition&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In April 2010, a two-judge Bench, after hearing Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati and amicus curiae A.K. Ganguly, posted before a larger Bench the petition filed by Suraz India Trust seeking review of the collegium system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accordingly, the matter was on Monday posted before a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir and Justices J. Chelameswar and Vikaramjit Sen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the collegium system, the executive has no say in judicial appointments. The recommendations of the collegium of judges are final and binding on the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Suraz India Trust sought reconsideration of the proposition of law settled in the judgment in the case of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association and others vs. the Union of India and others in 1993.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the resumed hearing, Mr. Ganguly referred to the questions framed by the two-judge Bench for consideration by the larger Bench. However, the CJI, without going into merits, questioned the Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file the petition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The questions framed were: will the two decisions of this court (1993 and 1998) really amount to amending Article 124 (2) of the Constitution? Is there any &amp;lsquo;collegium&amp;rsquo; system in the Constitution for appointing Supreme Court or High Court judges? Can the Constitution be amended by a judicial verdict or only by Parliament in accordance with Article 368? In the constitutional scheme, can the judges be appointed by discussions and consensus between the judiciary and the executive, or can the judiciary alone make the appointments? Does the word &amp;lsquo;consultation&amp;rsquo; in Article 224 mean &amp;lsquo;concurrence&amp;rsquo;?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By judicial interpretation, can words in the Constitution be made redundant, as appears to have been done in the aforesaid two decisions which have made consultation with High Court judges redundant while appointing a Supreme Court judge despite the fact that it is permissible on the clear language of Article 124(2)? Can the clear language of Article 124(2) be altered by judicial verdicts and instead of allowing the President to consult such judges of the Supreme Court (including even junior judges) as he deems necessary, can only the CJI and four seniormost judges be consulted while appointing a Supreme Court judge? Is there any convention that the President is bound by the advice of the CJI and (assuming there is one) can it prevail over the clear language of Article 124(2)? Has the CJI&amp;rsquo;s opinion any primacy in the appointments? Should the two decisions be overruled by a larger Bench?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;In collegium system, executive has no say in judicial appointments&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two-judge framed questions for consideration by larger Bench&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 8 January, 2013, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/supreme-court-wont-revisit-collegium-system/article4285190.ece&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;supreme-court-won039t-revisit-collegium-system-18805&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 18805,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 18671
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court won&amp;#039;t revisit collegium system&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Law and Justice&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Hindu

CJI questions Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file petition

The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

In April 2010, a two-judge...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;CJI questions Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file petition&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In April 2010, a two-judge Bench, after hearing Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati and amicus curiae A.K. Ganguly, posted before a larger Bench the petition filed by Suraz India Trust seeking review of the collegium system.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Accordingly, the matter was on Monday posted before a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir and Justices J. Chelameswar and Vikaramjit Sen.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under the collegium system, the executive has no say in judicial appointments. The recommendations of the collegium of judges are final and binding on the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Suraz India Trust sought reconsideration of the proposition of law settled in the judgment in the case of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association and others vs. the Union of India and others in 1993.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;During the resumed hearing, Mr. Ganguly referred to the questions framed by the two-judge Bench for consideration by the larger Bench. However, the CJI, without going into merits, questioned the Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file the petition.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The questions framed were: will the two decisions of this court (1993 and 1998) really amount to amending Article 124 (2) of the Constitution? Is there any &amp;lsquo;collegium&amp;rsquo; system in the Constitution for appointing Supreme Court or High Court judges? Can the Constitution be amended by a judicial verdict or only by Parliament in accordance with Article 368? In the constitutional scheme, can the judges be appointed by discussions and consensus between the judiciary and the executive, or can the judiciary alone make the appointments? Does the word &amp;lsquo;consultation&amp;rsquo; in Article 224 mean &amp;lsquo;concurrence&amp;rsquo;?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;By judicial interpretation, can words in the Constitution be made redundant, as appears to have been done in the aforesaid two decisions which have made consultation with High Court judges redundant while appointing a Supreme Court judge despite the fact that it is permissible on the clear language of Article 124(2)? Can the clear language of Article 124(2) be altered by judicial verdicts and instead of allowing the President to consult such judges of the Supreme Court (including even junior judges) as he deems necessary, can only the CJI and four seniormost judges be consulted while appointing a Supreme Court judge? Is there any convention that the President is bound by the advice of the CJI and (assuming there is one) can it prevail over the clear language of Article 124(2)? Has the CJI&amp;rsquo;s opinion any primacy in the appointments? Should the two decisions be overruled by a larger Bench?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;In collegium system, executive has no say in judicial appointments&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Two-judge framed questions for consideration by larger Bench&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/supreme-court-won039t-revisit-collegium-system-18805.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court won&#039;t revisit collegium system | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Hindu

CJI questions Trust&rsquo;s locus standi to file petition

The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

In April 2010, a two-judge..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Supreme Court won&#039;t revisit collegium system</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Hindu<br /><br /><em>CJI questions Trust&rsquo;s locus standi to file petition<br /></em><br />The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.<br /><br />In April 2010, a two-judge Bench, after hearing Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati and amicus curiae A.K. Ganguly, posted before a larger Bench the petition filed by Suraz India Trust seeking review of the collegium system.<br /><br />Accordingly, the matter was on Monday posted before a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir and Justices J. Chelameswar and Vikaramjit Sen.<br /><br />Under the collegium system, the executive has no say in judicial appointments. The recommendations of the collegium of judges are final and binding on the government.<br /><br />The Suraz India Trust sought reconsideration of the proposition of law settled in the judgment in the case of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association and others vs. the Union of India and others in 1993.<br /><br />During the resumed hearing, Mr. Ganguly referred to the questions framed by the two-judge Bench for consideration by the larger Bench. However, the CJI, without going into merits, questioned the Trust&rsquo;s locus standi to file the petition.<br /><br />The questions framed were: will the two decisions of this court (1993 and 1998) really amount to amending Article 124 (2) of the Constitution? Is there any &lsquo;collegium&rsquo; system in the Constitution for appointing Supreme Court or High Court judges? Can the Constitution be amended by a judicial verdict or only by Parliament in accordance with Article 368? In the constitutional scheme, can the judges be appointed by discussions and consensus between the judiciary and the executive, or can the judiciary alone make the appointments? Does the word &lsquo;consultation&rsquo; in Article 224 mean &lsquo;concurrence&rsquo;?<br /><br />By judicial interpretation, can words in the Constitution be made redundant, as appears to have been done in the aforesaid two decisions which have made consultation with High Court judges redundant while appointing a Supreme Court judge despite the fact that it is permissible on the clear language of Article 124(2)? Can the clear language of Article 124(2) be altered by judicial verdicts and instead of allowing the President to consult such judges of the Supreme Court (including even junior judges) as he deems necessary, can only the CJI and four seniormost judges be consulted while appointing a Supreme Court judge? Is there any convention that the President is bound by the advice of the CJI and (assuming there is one) can it prevail over the clear language of Article 124(2)? Has the CJI&rsquo;s opinion any primacy in the appointments? Should the two decisions be overruled by a larger Bench?<br /><br /><em>In collegium system, executive has no say in judicial appointments<br /><br />Two-judge framed questions for consideration by larger Bench</em></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ffe247342c3-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ffe247342c3-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67ffe247342c3-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ffe247342c3-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ffe247342c3-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ffe247342c3-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ffe247342c3-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67ffe247342c3-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67ffe247342c3-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 18671,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Supreme Court won&amp;#039;t revisit collegium system&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;CJI questions Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file petition&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In April 2010, a two-judge Bench, after hearing Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati and amicus curiae A.K. Ganguly, posted before a larger Bench the petition filed by Suraz India Trust seeking review of the collegium system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accordingly, the matter was on Monday posted before a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir and Justices J. Chelameswar and Vikaramjit Sen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the collegium system, the executive has no say in judicial appointments. The recommendations of the collegium of judges are final and binding on the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Suraz India Trust sought reconsideration of the proposition of law settled in the judgment in the case of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association and others vs. the Union of India and others in 1993.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the resumed hearing, Mr. Ganguly referred to the questions framed by the two-judge Bench for consideration by the larger Bench. However, the CJI, without going into merits, questioned the Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file the petition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The questions framed were: will the two decisions of this court (1993 and 1998) really amount to amending Article 124 (2) of the Constitution? Is there any &amp;lsquo;collegium&amp;rsquo; system in the Constitution for appointing Supreme Court or High Court judges? Can the Constitution be amended by a judicial verdict or only by Parliament in accordance with Article 368? In the constitutional scheme, can the judges be appointed by discussions and consensus between the judiciary and the executive, or can the judiciary alone make the appointments? Does the word &amp;lsquo;consultation&amp;rsquo; in Article 224 mean &amp;lsquo;concurrence&amp;rsquo;?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By judicial interpretation, can words in the Constitution be made redundant, as appears to have been done in the aforesaid two decisions which have made consultation with High Court judges redundant while appointing a Supreme Court judge despite the fact that it is permissible on the clear language of Article 124(2)? Can the clear language of Article 124(2) be altered by judicial verdicts and instead of allowing the President to consult such judges of the Supreme Court (including even junior judges) as he deems necessary, can only the CJI and four seniormost judges be consulted while appointing a Supreme Court judge? Is there any convention that the President is bound by the advice of the CJI and (assuming there is one) can it prevail over the clear language of Article 124(2)? Has the CJI&amp;rsquo;s opinion any primacy in the appointments? Should the two decisions be overruled by a larger Bench?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;In collegium system, executive has no say in judicial appointments&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two-judge framed questions for consideration by larger Bench&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 8 January, 2013, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/supreme-court-wont-revisit-collegium-system/article4285190.ece&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;supreme-court-won039t-revisit-collegium-system-18805&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 18805,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 18671,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court won&amp;#039;t revisit collegium system&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Law and Justice&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Hindu

CJI questions Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file petition

The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

In April 2010, a two-judge...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;CJI questions Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file petition&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In April 2010, a two-judge Bench, after hearing Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati and amicus curiae A.K. Ganguly, posted before a larger Bench the petition filed by Suraz India Trust seeking review of the collegium system.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Accordingly, the matter was on Monday posted before a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir and Justices J. Chelameswar and Vikaramjit Sen.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under the collegium system, the executive has no say in judicial appointments. The recommendations of the collegium of judges are final and binding on the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Suraz India Trust sought reconsideration of the proposition of law settled in the judgment in the case of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association and others vs. the Union of India and others in 1993.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;During the resumed hearing, Mr. Ganguly referred to the questions framed by the two-judge Bench for consideration by the larger Bench. However, the CJI, without going into merits, questioned the Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file the petition.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The questions framed were: will the two decisions of this court (1993 and 1998) really amount to amending Article 124 (2) of the Constitution? Is there any &amp;lsquo;collegium&amp;rsquo; system in the Constitution for appointing Supreme Court or High Court judges? Can the Constitution be amended by a judicial verdict or only by Parliament in accordance with Article 368? In the constitutional scheme, can the judges be appointed by discussions and consensus between the judiciary and the executive, or can the judiciary alone make the appointments? Does the word &amp;lsquo;consultation&amp;rsquo; in Article 224 mean &amp;lsquo;concurrence&amp;rsquo;?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;By judicial interpretation, can words in the Constitution be made redundant, as appears to have been done in the aforesaid two decisions which have made consultation with High Court judges redundant while appointing a Supreme Court judge despite the fact that it is permissible on the clear language of Article 124(2)? Can the clear language of Article 124(2) be altered by judicial verdicts and instead of allowing the President to consult such judges of the Supreme Court (including even junior judges) as he deems necessary, can only the CJI and four seniormost judges be consulted while appointing a Supreme Court judge? Is there any convention that the President is bound by the advice of the CJI and (assuming there is one) can it prevail over the clear language of Article 124(2)? Has the CJI&amp;rsquo;s opinion any primacy in the appointments? Should the two decisions be overruled by a larger Bench?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;In collegium system, executive has no say in judicial appointments&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Two-judge framed questions for consideration by larger Bench&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 18671,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Supreme Court won&amp;#039;t revisit collegium system&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;CJI questions Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file petition&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In April 2010, a two-judge Bench, after hearing Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati and amicus curiae A.K. Ganguly, posted before a larger Bench the petition filed by Suraz India Trust seeking review of the collegium system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accordingly, the matter was on Monday posted before a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir and Justices J. Chelameswar and Vikaramjit Sen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the collegium system, the executive has no say in judicial appointments. The recommendations of the collegium of judges are final and binding on the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Suraz India Trust sought reconsideration of the proposition of law settled in the judgment in the case of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association and others vs. the Union of India and others in 1993.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the resumed hearing, Mr. Ganguly referred to the questions framed by the two-judge Bench for consideration by the larger Bench. However, the CJI, without going into merits, questioned the Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file the petition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The questions framed were: will the two decisions of this court (1993 and 1998) really amount to amending Article 124 (2) of the Constitution? Is there any &amp;lsquo;collegium&amp;rsquo; system in the Constitution for appointing Supreme Court or High Court judges? Can the Constitution be amended by a judicial verdict or only by Parliament in accordance with Article 368? In the constitutional scheme, can the judges be appointed by discussions and consensus between the judiciary and the executive, or can the judiciary alone make the appointments? Does the word &amp;lsquo;consultation&amp;rsquo; in Article 224 mean &amp;lsquo;concurrence&amp;rsquo;?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By judicial interpretation, can words in the Constitution be made redundant, as appears to have been done in the aforesaid two decisions which have made consultation with High Court judges redundant while appointing a Supreme Court judge despite the fact that it is permissible on the clear language of Article 124(2)? Can the clear language of Article 124(2) be altered by judicial verdicts and instead of allowing the President to consult such judges of the Supreme Court (including even junior judges) as he deems necessary, can only the CJI and four seniormost judges be consulted while appointing a Supreme Court judge? Is there any convention that the President is bound by the advice of the CJI and (assuming there is one) can it prevail over the clear language of Article 124(2)? Has the CJI&amp;rsquo;s opinion any primacy in the appointments? Should the two decisions be overruled by a larger Bench?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;In collegium system, executive has no say in judicial appointments&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two-judge framed questions for consideration by larger Bench&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 8 January, 2013, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/supreme-court-wont-revisit-collegium-system/article4285190.ece&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;supreme-court-won039t-revisit-collegium-system-18805&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 18805,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 18671
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court won&amp;#039;t revisit collegium system&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Law and Justice&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Hindu

CJI questions Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file petition

The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

In April 2010, a two-judge...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;CJI questions Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file petition&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In April 2010, a two-judge Bench, after hearing Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati and amicus curiae A.K. Ganguly, posted before a larger Bench the petition filed by Suraz India Trust seeking review of the collegium system.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Accordingly, the matter was on Monday posted before a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir and Justices J. Chelameswar and Vikaramjit Sen.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under the collegium system, the executive has no say in judicial appointments. The recommendations of the collegium of judges are final and binding on the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Suraz India Trust sought reconsideration of the proposition of law settled in the judgment in the case of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association and others vs. the Union of India and others in 1993.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;During the resumed hearing, Mr. Ganguly referred to the questions framed by the two-judge Bench for consideration by the larger Bench. However, the CJI, without going into merits, questioned the Trust&amp;rsquo;s locus standi to file the petition.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The questions framed were: will the two decisions of this court (1993 and 1998) really amount to amending Article 124 (2) of the Constitution? Is there any &amp;lsquo;collegium&amp;rsquo; system in the Constitution for appointing Supreme Court or High Court judges? Can the Constitution be amended by a judicial verdict or only by Parliament in accordance with Article 368? In the constitutional scheme, can the judges be appointed by discussions and consensus between the judiciary and the executive, or can the judiciary alone make the appointments? Does the word &amp;lsquo;consultation&amp;rsquo; in Article 224 mean &amp;lsquo;concurrence&amp;rsquo;?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;By judicial interpretation, can words in the Constitution be made redundant, as appears to have been done in the aforesaid two decisions which have made consultation with High Court judges redundant while appointing a Supreme Court judge despite the fact that it is permissible on the clear language of Article 124(2)? Can the clear language of Article 124(2) be altered by judicial verdicts and instead of allowing the President to consult such judges of the Supreme Court (including even junior judges) as he deems necessary, can only the CJI and four seniormost judges be consulted while appointing a Supreme Court judge? Is there any convention that the President is bound by the advice of the CJI and (assuming there is one) can it prevail over the clear language of Article 124(2)? Has the CJI&amp;rsquo;s opinion any primacy in the appointments? Should the two decisions be overruled by a larger Bench?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;In collegium system, executive has no say in judicial appointments&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Two-judge framed questions for consideration by larger Bench&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/supreme-court-won039t-revisit-collegium-system-18805.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court won&#039;t revisit collegium system | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Hindu

CJI questions Trust&rsquo;s locus standi to file petition

The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

In April 2010, a two-judge..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Supreme Court won&#039;t revisit collegium system</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Hindu<br /><br /><em>CJI questions Trust&rsquo;s locus standi to file petition<br /></em><br />The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.<br /><br />In April 2010, a two-judge Bench, after hearing Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati and amicus curiae A.K. Ganguly, posted before a larger Bench the petition filed by Suraz India Trust seeking review of the collegium system.<br /><br />Accordingly, the matter was on Monday posted before a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir and Justices J. Chelameswar and Vikaramjit Sen.<br /><br />Under the collegium system, the executive has no say in judicial appointments. The recommendations of the collegium of judges are final and binding on the government.<br /><br />The Suraz India Trust sought reconsideration of the proposition of law settled in the judgment in the case of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association and others vs. the Union of India and others in 1993.<br /><br />During the resumed hearing, Mr. Ganguly referred to the questions framed by the two-judge Bench for consideration by the larger Bench. However, the CJI, without going into merits, questioned the Trust&rsquo;s locus standi to file the petition.<br /><br />The questions framed were: will the two decisions of this court (1993 and 1998) really amount to amending Article 124 (2) of the Constitution? Is there any &lsquo;collegium&rsquo; system in the Constitution for appointing Supreme Court or High Court judges? Can the Constitution be amended by a judicial verdict or only by Parliament in accordance with Article 368? In the constitutional scheme, can the judges be appointed by discussions and consensus between the judiciary and the executive, or can the judiciary alone make the appointments? Does the word &lsquo;consultation&rsquo; in Article 224 mean &lsquo;concurrence&rsquo;?<br /><br />By judicial interpretation, can words in the Constitution be made redundant, as appears to have been done in the aforesaid two decisions which have made consultation with High Court judges redundant while appointing a Supreme Court judge despite the fact that it is permissible on the clear language of Article 124(2)? Can the clear language of Article 124(2) be altered by judicial verdicts and instead of allowing the President to consult such judges of the Supreme Court (including even junior judges) as he deems necessary, can only the CJI and four seniormost judges be consulted while appointing a Supreme Court judge? Is there any convention that the President is bound by the advice of the CJI and (assuming there is one) can it prevail over the clear language of Article 124(2)? Has the CJI&rsquo;s opinion any primacy in the appointments? Should the two decisions be overruled by a larger Bench?<br /><br /><em>In collegium system, executive has no say in judicial appointments<br /><br />Two-judge framed questions for consideration by larger Bench</em></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 18671,
		'title' => 'Supreme Court won't revisit collegium system',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Hindu<br />
<br />
<em>CJI questions Trust&rsquo;s locus standi to file petition<br />
</em><br />
The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.<br />
<br />
In April 2010, a two-judge Bench, after hearing Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati and amicus curiae A.K. Ganguly, posted before a larger Bench the petition filed by Suraz India Trust seeking review of the collegium system.<br />
<br />
Accordingly, the matter was on Monday posted before a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir and Justices J. Chelameswar and Vikaramjit Sen.<br />
<br />
Under the collegium system, the executive has no say in judicial appointments. The recommendations of the collegium of judges are final and binding on the government.<br />
<br />
The Suraz India Trust sought reconsideration of the proposition of law settled in the judgment in the case of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association and others vs. the Union of India and others in 1993.<br />
<br />
During the resumed hearing, Mr. Ganguly referred to the questions framed by the two-judge Bench for consideration by the larger Bench. However, the CJI, without going into merits, questioned the Trust&rsquo;s locus standi to file the petition.<br />
<br />
The questions framed were: will the two decisions of this court (1993 and 1998) really amount to amending Article 124 (2) of the Constitution? Is there any &lsquo;collegium&rsquo; system in the Constitution for appointing Supreme Court or High Court judges? Can the Constitution be amended by a judicial verdict or only by Parliament in accordance with Article 368? In the constitutional scheme, can the judges be appointed by discussions and consensus between the judiciary and the executive, or can the judiciary alone make the appointments? Does the word &lsquo;consultation&rsquo; in Article 224 mean &lsquo;concurrence&rsquo;?<br />
<br />
By judicial interpretation, can words in the Constitution be made redundant, as appears to have been done in the aforesaid two decisions which have made consultation with High Court judges redundant while appointing a Supreme Court judge despite the fact that it is permissible on the clear language of Article 124(2)? Can the clear language of Article 124(2) be altered by judicial verdicts and instead of allowing the President to consult such judges of the Supreme Court (including even junior judges) as he deems necessary, can only the CJI and four seniormost judges be consulted while appointing a Supreme Court judge? Is there any convention that the President is bound by the advice of the CJI and (assuming there is one) can it prevail over the clear language of Article 124(2)? Has the CJI&rsquo;s opinion any primacy in the appointments? Should the two decisions be overruled by a larger Bench?<br />
<br />
<em>In collegium system, executive has no say in judicial appointments<br />
<br />
Two-judge framed questions for consideration by larger Bench</em>
</div>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 8 January, 2013, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/supreme-court-wont-revisit-collegium-system/article4285190.ece',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'supreme-court-won039t-revisit-collegium-system-18805',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 18805,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 18671,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court won&#039;t revisit collegium system',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Law and Justice',
	'metaDesc' => '
-The Hindu

CJI questions Trust&rsquo;s locus standi to file petition

The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

In April 2010, a two-judge...',
	'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Hindu<br /><br /><em>CJI questions Trust&rsquo;s locus standi to file petition<br /></em><br />The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.<br /><br />In April 2010, a two-judge Bench, after hearing Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati and amicus curiae A.K. Ganguly, posted before a larger Bench the petition filed by Suraz India Trust seeking review of the collegium system.<br /><br />Accordingly, the matter was on Monday posted before a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir and Justices J. Chelameswar and Vikaramjit Sen.<br /><br />Under the collegium system, the executive has no say in judicial appointments. The recommendations of the collegium of judges are final and binding on the government.<br /><br />The Suraz India Trust sought reconsideration of the proposition of law settled in the judgment in the case of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association and others vs. the Union of India and others in 1993.<br /><br />During the resumed hearing, Mr. Ganguly referred to the questions framed by the two-judge Bench for consideration by the larger Bench. However, the CJI, without going into merits, questioned the Trust&rsquo;s locus standi to file the petition.<br /><br />The questions framed were: will the two decisions of this court (1993 and 1998) really amount to amending Article 124 (2) of the Constitution? Is there any &lsquo;collegium&rsquo; system in the Constitution for appointing Supreme Court or High Court judges? Can the Constitution be amended by a judicial verdict or only by Parliament in accordance with Article 368? In the constitutional scheme, can the judges be appointed by discussions and consensus between the judiciary and the executive, or can the judiciary alone make the appointments? Does the word &lsquo;consultation&rsquo; in Article 224 mean &lsquo;concurrence&rsquo;?<br /><br />By judicial interpretation, can words in the Constitution be made redundant, as appears to have been done in the aforesaid two decisions which have made consultation with High Court judges redundant while appointing a Supreme Court judge despite the fact that it is permissible on the clear language of Article 124(2)? Can the clear language of Article 124(2) be altered by judicial verdicts and instead of allowing the President to consult such judges of the Supreme Court (including even junior judges) as he deems necessary, can only the CJI and four seniormost judges be consulted while appointing a Supreme Court judge? Is there any convention that the President is bound by the advice of the CJI and (assuming there is one) can it prevail over the clear language of Article 124(2)? Has the CJI&rsquo;s opinion any primacy in the appointments? Should the two decisions be overruled by a larger Bench?<br /><br /><em>In collegium system, executive has no say in judicial appointments<br /><br />Two-judge framed questions for consideration by larger Bench</em></div>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 18671,
	'title' => 'Supreme Court won&#039;t revisit collegium system',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Hindu<br />
<br />
<em>CJI questions Trust&rsquo;s locus standi to file petition<br />
</em><br />
The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.<br />
<br />
In April 2010, a two-judge Bench, after hearing Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati and amicus curiae A.K. Ganguly, posted before a larger Bench the petition filed by Suraz India Trust seeking review of the collegium system.<br />
<br />
Accordingly, the matter was on Monday posted before a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir and Justices J. Chelameswar and Vikaramjit Sen.<br />
<br />
Under the collegium system, the executive has no say in judicial appointments. The recommendations of the collegium of judges are final and binding on the government.<br />
<br />
The Suraz India Trust sought reconsideration of the proposition of law settled in the judgment in the case of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association and others vs. the Union of India and others in 1993.<br />
<br />
During the resumed hearing, Mr. Ganguly referred to the questions framed by the two-judge Bench for consideration by the larger Bench. However, the CJI, without going into merits, questioned the Trust&rsquo;s locus standi to file the petition.<br />
<br />
The questions framed were: will the two decisions of this court (1993 and 1998) really amount to amending Article 124 (2) of the Constitution? Is there any &lsquo;collegium&rsquo; system in the Constitution for appointing Supreme Court or High Court judges? Can the Constitution be amended by a judicial verdict or only by Parliament in accordance with Article 368? In the constitutional scheme, can the judges be appointed by discussions and consensus between the judiciary and the executive, or can the judiciary alone make the appointments? Does the word &lsquo;consultation&rsquo; in Article 224 mean &lsquo;concurrence&rsquo;?<br />
<br />
By judicial interpretation, can words in the Constitution be made redundant, as appears to have been done in the aforesaid two decisions which have made consultation with High Court judges redundant while appointing a Supreme Court judge despite the fact that it is permissible on the clear language of Article 124(2)? Can the clear language of Article 124(2) be altered by judicial verdicts and instead of allowing the President to consult such judges of the Supreme Court (including even junior judges) as he deems necessary, can only the CJI and four seniormost judges be consulted while appointing a Supreme Court judge? Is there any convention that the President is bound by the advice of the CJI and (assuming there is one) can it prevail over the clear language of Article 124(2)? Has the CJI&rsquo;s opinion any primacy in the appointments? Should the two decisions be overruled by a larger Bench?<br />
<br />
<em>In collegium system, executive has no say in judicial appointments<br />
<br />
Two-judge framed questions for consideration by larger Bench</em>
</div>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 8 January, 2013, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/supreme-court-wont-revisit-collegium-system/article4285190.ece',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'supreme-court-won039t-revisit-collegium-system-18805',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 18805,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 18671
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court won&#039;t revisit collegium system'
$metaKeywords = 'Law and Justice'
$metaDesc = '
-The Hindu

CJI questions Trust&rsquo;s locus standi to file petition

The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

In April 2010, a two-judge...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Hindu<br /><br /><em>CJI questions Trust&rsquo;s locus standi to file petition<br /></em><br />The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.<br /><br />In April 2010, a two-judge Bench, after hearing Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati and amicus curiae A.K. Ganguly, posted before a larger Bench the petition filed by Suraz India Trust seeking review of the collegium system.<br /><br />Accordingly, the matter was on Monday posted before a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir and Justices J. Chelameswar and Vikaramjit Sen.<br /><br />Under the collegium system, the executive has no say in judicial appointments. The recommendations of the collegium of judges are final and binding on the government.<br /><br />The Suraz India Trust sought reconsideration of the proposition of law settled in the judgment in the case of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association and others vs. the Union of India and others in 1993.<br /><br />During the resumed hearing, Mr. Ganguly referred to the questions framed by the two-judge Bench for consideration by the larger Bench. However, the CJI, without going into merits, questioned the Trust&rsquo;s locus standi to file the petition.<br /><br />The questions framed were: will the two decisions of this court (1993 and 1998) really amount to amending Article 124 (2) of the Constitution? Is there any &lsquo;collegium&rsquo; system in the Constitution for appointing Supreme Court or High Court judges? Can the Constitution be amended by a judicial verdict or only by Parliament in accordance with Article 368? In the constitutional scheme, can the judges be appointed by discussions and consensus between the judiciary and the executive, or can the judiciary alone make the appointments? Does the word &lsquo;consultation&rsquo; in Article 224 mean &lsquo;concurrence&rsquo;?<br /><br />By judicial interpretation, can words in the Constitution be made redundant, as appears to have been done in the aforesaid two decisions which have made consultation with High Court judges redundant while appointing a Supreme Court judge despite the fact that it is permissible on the clear language of Article 124(2)? Can the clear language of Article 124(2) be altered by judicial verdicts and instead of allowing the President to consult such judges of the Supreme Court (including even junior judges) as he deems necessary, can only the CJI and four seniormost judges be consulted while appointing a Supreme Court judge? Is there any convention that the President is bound by the advice of the CJI and (assuming there is one) can it prevail over the clear language of Article 124(2)? Has the CJI&rsquo;s opinion any primacy in the appointments? Should the two decisions be overruled by a larger Bench?<br /><br /><em>In collegium system, executive has no say in judicial appointments<br /><br />Two-judge framed questions for consideration by larger Bench</em></div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

Supreme Court won't revisit collegium system

-The Hindu CJI questions Trust’s locus standi to file petition The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for revisiting the 1993 nine-judge judgment giving its collegium primacy in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. In April 2010, a two-judge Bench, after hearing Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati and amicus curiae A.K. Ganguly, posted before a larger Bench the petition filed by Suraz India Trust seeking review of the collegium system. Accordingly, the matter was on Monday posted before a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir and Justices J. Chelameswar and Vikaramjit Sen. Under the collegium system, the executive has no say in judicial appointments. The recommendations of the collegium of judges are final and binding on the government. The Suraz India Trust sought reconsideration of the proposition of law settled in the judgment in the case of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association and others vs. the Union of India and others in 1993. During the resumed hearing, Mr. Ganguly referred to the questions framed by the two-judge Bench for consideration by the larger Bench. However, the CJI, without going into merits, questioned the Trust’s locus standi to file the petition. The questions framed were: will the two decisions of this court (1993 and 1998) really amount to amending Article 124 (2) of the Constitution? Is there any ‘collegium’ system in the Constitution for appointing Supreme Court or High Court judges? Can the Constitution be amended by a judicial verdict or only by Parliament in accordance with Article 368? In the constitutional scheme, can the judges be appointed by discussions and consensus between the judiciary and the executive, or can the judiciary alone make the appointments? Does the word ‘consultation’ in Article 224 mean ‘concurrence’? By judicial interpretation, can words in the Constitution be made redundant, as appears to have been done in the aforesaid two decisions which have made consultation with High Court judges redundant while appointing a Supreme Court judge despite the fact that it is permissible on the clear language of Article 124(2)? Can the clear language of Article 124(2) be altered by judicial verdicts and instead of allowing the President to consult such judges of the Supreme Court (including even junior judges) as he deems necessary, can only the CJI and four seniormost judges be consulted while appointing a Supreme Court judge? Is there any convention that the President is bound by the advice of the CJI and (assuming there is one) can it prevail over the clear language of Article 124(2)? Has the CJI’s opinion any primacy in the appointments? Should the two decisions be overruled by a larger Bench? In collegium system, executive has no say in judicial appointments Two-judge framed questions for consideration by larger Bench