As the foreign funded anarchy flopped on Oct 10 ..... on the cusp between Oct 10 and 11; it is relevant to remind the nation and sincere well wishers what Kiren Rijiju had said in 2023

Reform at every stage is something the Bharat of circa 2026 should get.  

The jokers were arrested or detained. The capital Anarchy was saved.

As the 'foreign funded anarchy' flopped on Oct 10 ..... on the cusp between Oct 10 and 11; it is relevant to remind the nation and sincere well wishers what Kiren Rijiju had said in 2023.  

The sacred cows are not well deserving sacred cows. The Ayodhya verdict could have come many years back. 

But .....  the love for Headline is something -- we all should be concerned about. 

Have sacred cows helped resolve single big problem in this country ? 

Perhaps only with the Rafale controversy and crown prince's baseless (uneducated type allegations) -- they showed the right sense of urgency. 

As Union Law and Justice Minister (July 2021 to May 2023), Kiren Rijiju frequently voiced strong criticisms of the Indian judiciary, particularly targeting the Supreme Court's Collegium system for appointing judges.  

And he did the right thing.  

Why a special petition is being heard on a Sunday is like asking why mid-night sessions were held with regard to terrorists. 

Somewhere this love for headline love is doing the damage.  

In 2023 - as Law Minister of India - Kiren Rijiju had said : "Unko toh chunao nahi ladna hae 

"Judge wo ka toh public scrutiny bhi nahi kar sakte".    

Rijiju has during that period repeatedly described the Supreme Court's Collegium system as "opaque," "unaccountable," and "alien to the Constitution". 

He pushed for government and executive representation inside the judicial appointments panel to infuse transparency.

Public Scrutiny & Accountability: He had stated that while judges do not face elections or direct public scrutiny like politicians, citizens continuously evaluate them through their behavior and judgments.

(India cannot forget, the judicial system had given a judge called Liberhan too) 

Rijiju had also criticized the disclosure of confidential Intelligence Bureau (IB) and R&AW reports by the collegium and accused a small group of retired judges and activists of acting like ...

an "anti-India gang" trying to turn the judiciary into an opposition party.

The then Law Minister frequently expressed grave concern over the massive backlog of cases in Indian courts, noting that pendency was nearing 5 crore cases and pointing out major infrastructure challenges in lower courts.

Despite the heavy public sparring, Rijiju maintained that institutional differences with the judiciary were natural in a democracy and did not mean open confrontation.  

The Supreme Court had struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act (often referred to as the JAC Bill or 99th Constitutional Amendment Act). 

On October 16, 2015, a five-judge Constitution Bench ruled with a 4:1 majority to invalidate the law and restore the older Collegium system for appointing judges.   

Notably, Justice Jasti Chelameswar was the lone dissenting judge in JAC verdict of 2015.

While the majority judges declared the NJAC unconstitutional to protect judicial independence, Justice Chelameswar upheld the validity of the law (passed by the Modi Govt) and wrote a strongly-worded dissent against the restored collegium system.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Chelameswar made the following key observations:

The Collegium System is Absolutely Opaque

He criticized the pre-existing "judges appointing judges" collegium system for its total lack of transparency. 

He wrote that collegium proceedings are "absolutely opaque and inaccessible both to the public and history," noting that the only way anyone ever learns about its deliberations is through occasional, unreliable leaks. 

He noted that records were even kept out of reach of ordinary judges who were not part of the top collegium.

Total Executive Exclusion Violates Democratic Principles

Justice Chelameswar ---- had argued that completely shutting out the government from the process of selecting judges is fundamentally against the country's democratic principles. 

In a democratic setup, accountability and checks and balances require that the elected executive have some say in these vital appointments.

Blogger 

However, 

• On January 12, 2018, 

Justice Chelameswar led an unprecedented press conference alongside three other senior Supreme Court judges 

(Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B. Lokur, and Kurian Joseph).

and accused the then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra of selective and improper allocation of sensitive cases to preferred benches.

They had warned that the internal crisis threatened Indian democracy.

It was the first time sitting apex court judges openly criticized the CJI's administrative functioning, drawing mixed reactions from the legal fraternity and criticism from the Bar Council of India.

ends