Mumbai: The Supreme Court of India is "incorruptible" and any claim of perceived interference by the executive in the judiciary is unfounded, Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand said today.
Anand, whose tenure as the ASG was recently extended till 2020 by the Union government, said constant apprehensions or questions on the judgments or views taken by the courts, including the SC, must stop as they affect the sanctity of the institution, and referred to the matters like Judge Loya's death and Aadhaar.
"The Supreme Court is incorruptible. There is no interference by the government in the day-to-day functions of the courts. However, constant apprehensions or questions on the judgments or views taken by the courts, including the SC, must stop," Anand said at the India Today Conclave here.
"SC decides all cases solely on the rule of law. However, these constant questions affect the sanctity of the institution. These questions, be it the matters of Judge Loya, Aadhaar, Hadiya, at some point, we need to call it a day," Anand said, referring to the death of the judge, who was presiding over the trial of the Sohrabuddin Shaikh encounter case, and other controversial issues before the apex court.
She was responding to her co-participant and senior lawyer Indira Jaising's allegations of corruption within the judiciary and the consequent unprecedented press conference held by four SC judges earlier this year.
Earlier, during the day, Jaising had alleged that the executive often interfered with the judiciary, particularly, in appointments of judges in the high courts and the Supreme Court.
"Most appointments are political. Even if the collegium recommends the name of a particular judge, the government sits indefinitely on that appointment if it is not politically convenient. And this (political interference in appointment of judges) used to happen even before 2014," Jaising said.
"One must remember that without a free press and an independent judiciary, we (the citizens) will be at immense loss," she said.
Both Jaising and Anand, however, agreed that despite apprehensions, and questions of judicial overreach and under-reach, the citizens still had faith in the rule of law. That is why cases of all sorts, be it something as personal as marriage, the right to privacy, demonetisation, and the mandir issue, reach the courts, both said.