Senior counsel K.K.Venugopal and Attorney-General Vahanvati are arguing for the CVC Thomas and the Central Government respectively in the Supreme Court case questioning the propriety of Thomas' appointment as CVC. Both are arguing that the appointment is proper and at any rate not questionable by the Court.
10th February saw both these eminences put forth their views in the court. There was a glaring contradiction in their opinions regarding presidential powers on appointment of CVC.
Venugopal was emphatic that " in the case of appointment of the CVC, the President exercised the discretionary power and not on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. While so, such discretion could not be a subject matter of judicial review".
Vahanvati was equally forthright when he said, "once the recommendation goes from the PM, it is binding on the President to give assent and she has no other option".
Obviously, both views cannot be simultaneously tenable. In their anxiety to protect Thomas, the learned counsels are telling the Supreme Court that it may interpret the law whichever way it wants so long as it upholds the appointment of Thomas.
10th February saw both these eminences put forth their views in the court. There was a glaring contradiction in their opinions regarding presidential powers on appointment of CVC.
Venugopal was emphatic that " in the case of appointment of the CVC, the President exercised the discretionary power and not on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. While so, such discretion could not be a subject matter of judicial review".
Vahanvati was equally forthright when he said, "once the recommendation goes from the PM, it is binding on the President to give assent and she has no other option".
Obviously, both views cannot be simultaneously tenable. In their anxiety to protect Thomas, the learned counsels are telling the Supreme Court that it may interpret the law whichever way it wants so long as it upholds the appointment of Thomas.
No comments:
Post a Comment