Why role of 'Eminent People' should be scrutinized publically?

Why most institutions failed to deliver as per expectations?

The Bench, led by Justice J S Khehar, held as “ultra vires” the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act and the NJAC Act, which had proposed that appointments be done by a six-member body, headed by the Chief Justice of India, and including two seniormost SC judges, the Union Law Minister and two “eminent” persons. These two would be selected by a panel including the Prime Minister, the CJI and the leader of the largest Opposition party in the Lok Sabha. - See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/sc-strikes-down-njac-revives-collegium-system-of-appointing-judges/#sthash.lwQZ0kiQ.dpuf

The Bench, led by Justice J S Khehar, held as “ultra vires” the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act and the NJAC Act, which had proposed that appointments be done by a six-member body, headed by the Chief Justice of India, and including two seniormost SC judges, the Union Law Minister and two “eminent” persons. These two would be selected by a panel including the Prime Minister, the CJI and the leader of the largest Opposition party in the Lok Sabha.

Why political system wants to appoint judges, when their own appointed ministers are facing charges of corruption?

Supreme Court rejected the 99th Constitutional amendment via National Judiciary Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act. More we read about it, more clarity will emerge. It is a very well thought out judgement. I personally support Supreme Court views on this because none of the institutions where political system appointed people, have performed as per expectation of the society.

This raises many issues about role of eminent people in other committees and commissions appointed by government.

Are 'Eminent People' really competent for which they are appointed?

If most of the eminent people were so competent then why education, agriculture, healthcare, infrastructure, public safety, etc in the country are in such a bad shape.

What was the role of eminent people appointed by government in various institutions, commissions and committees till date?
Were they really competent, or just eminent?
What is the definition of 'eminent people"?
Are competent people eminent?
Why eminent people lobby with political leaders and government officials to get position in committees? What they get by doing so?
Why political leaders and bureaucrats appoint only selected 'eminent people' in various committees?
Why authorities never tell the reason and the competency of selected such 'eminent people'?

Supreme Court of has rightly mentioned that why eminent people appoint by one ruling party is not eminent person for another political party.

Why eminent people are forced to resign when new government comes to power?

All these issues raises a fundamental issue, should we define the term "eminent people' or should we stop using this term in legal and policy making environment.

Who is seeking judicial reforms - those who are opposing Police and Administrative reforms?

Political system who refuses to follow RTI coverage for political parties, don't want to disclose their sources of funding, those who resist disqualification of criminals from fighting elections, people those who are not willing to follow law and seek special privileges in every department, special concessions in every activity including cricket matches, railways, airlines, etc. and also willing to field the criminals to win elections, use black money in elections and distribute drugs and liquor to win elections. Demand capitation fee and donation for admission in medical and engineering collages run by them. Such people are demanding judicial reforms.

The current appointments by political system in various institutions, committees and authorities should be scrutinized based on the criteria of performance and competency. This will expose the type of people placed by political system. Let media do this analysis department by department and bring it to public domain.

Do they have track record to prove that they are netter than the judges those who run present system of judicial appointments.

As a common citizen, this shakes my confidence and raises doubt about the motives behind proposed judicial reforms.

Common man thinks judicial system is better than current political system. So, who should seek change where?

Ministers appointed by political system are facing corruption charges, first they should learn to appoint ministers with clean image and high integrity before seek role in judicial appointments.

We should also discuss, what makes people eminent?

The person is eminent just because she or he supports political ideology of the ruling party, or person who survived so long in the system irrespective of his/her meaningful contribution, or he is really competent by contemporary knowledge and meaningful actions in the interest of larger society.

I think we should seek answers from the government on every appointment because track record so far is not inspiring.

The Way Forward:

Government should also study how screening is done in other countries before appointment of any 'eminent person' on any position. How accountability is fixed on eminent people when they are in office and what is the review mechanism to evaluate the performance of eminent people.

Supreme Court once again raised a very vital issue and this should be discussed before any political move on this subject.

Vijay Sardana Online