The letter ‘Biased judge’, February 5, suggests India should adopt the US system of getting top appointments ratified by Parliament and adds that this will ensure there is no bias in the appointment process. Such a system may work in countries like the US, where politicians are allowed to vote against the party line, and take a stand on issues. By contrast, since voting against the party whip is not allowed in India, the ratification will always be a formality — so it will hardly serve any purpose.
If the appointment of Navin Chawla had gone to Parliament for ratification, do you think it would not have been ratified? The same applies to the suggestion that such posts be made by a panel consisting the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Lok Sabha Speaker and so on. If the principle here is, as it has to be, that the majority decision will be binding, the government will always have the final say.
M C Joshi, Lucknow
Readers should write to:
The Editor, Business Standard,
Nehru House,
4, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi 110 002,
Fax: (011) 23720201;
letters@bsmail.in
