The Supreme Court today wondered how transparency cannot be taken beyond a point in appointment of judges to higher judiciary even when a person is casteist, communal or dishonest.
During the hearing on the new law to replace the collegium system of appointments, a bench of the court headed by Justice J S Khehar noted that transparency could be there only to a "certain degree".
The bench put a query as to how it can be proved even when it is known that a person under consideration for appointment for judgeship is casteist, communal, dishonest and misleads.
"How are you going to prove that a person is casteist? He is a communal? He misleads or is dishonest," asked the constitution bench.
"Can you put an opinion in public when it opens up a candidate (for judgeship) to public ridicule? Hundreds of litigations will then start. We can be transparent to certain degree but not to the world at large" the bench said.
"The wisdom of people who watch over needs to be preserved. Transparency is good but you should give views above it. It may be transparent to a degree but not at large. We want to devise something that wrong is not perpetuated.," the bench observed.
The bench intervened when senior lawyer Ram Jethmalani said the collegium system needs to be "opened up" and more transparency must be brought in appointments.
