(This story originally appeared in on Oct 24, 2015)

NEW DELHI: After his rasping "tyranny of the unelected" criticism of the Supreme Court judgment striking down National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) for its distrust against politicians, finance minister Arun Jaitley on Friday said this did not mean any confrontation between judiciary and government or, for that matter, between judiciary and Parliament.Speaking for the government at a TV debate, Jaitley said, "The Supreme Court has rightly or wrongly decided. The judgment will be complied with. The NJAC is dead and gone but debate for a better system for appointment of judges will continue. It can happen in public and in Parliament as India needs an independent and credible judiciary."He said the SC was constitutionally empowered to strike down a constitutional amendment. "No one is doubting that. My 'tyranny of unelected' comment was meant against the deep distrust of politicians shown by the judges. My criticism was against the premise of the judgment that politicians could not be trusted and the judiciary as an institution needs to be protected from elected representatives," he said.Former Chief Justice of India R M Lodha defended the SC judgment and said he could not believe the "tyranny of the unelected" criticism coming from Jaitley. "Had such a comment come during the years leading to Emergency, one can understand. I hope no one wants a judiciary where the appointment takes place if the concerned person knew a politician," he said.However, Justice Lodha conceded that the collegium system had its flaws. "The system is opaque and secretive. There is lack of expert evaluation of merit of a candidate considered for appointment as judge," he said.Jaitley countered Justice Lodha by citing how the judiciary made appointments in an adamant manner. "One person was recommended for appointment as a judge of the HC by the collegium. I as law minister and then PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee returned the recommendation with strong comments against the person's integrity. But the collegium within 24 hours reaffirmed the recommendation."When it was sent to (then) President A P J Abdul Kalam , he returned the recommendation to the collegium with strong comments. Yet, the collegium again reaffirmed the recommendation. The person was appointed as a judge. But within two years, the man showed his true colours and the collegium was forced not to confirm him as a permanent judge," Jaitley said.Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan defended striking down of the NJAC, saying there was a fundamental flaw in its DNA as it allowed political interference in the independence of judiciary, a view shared by Justice Lodha.Dhavan said he had been privy to the manner in which judges were appointed by former law ministers P Shiv Shankar and H R Bharadwaj. "Law ministers in the 1980s were awful. There were law ministers like Shiv Shankar and Bharadwaj who dominated the judiciary and appointments. That is the reason the judiciary interpreted the constitutional provision giving primacy to the CJI-headed collegium for selecting judges," he said.Former attorney general Soli J Sorabjee said there was no harm in giving primacy to the judiciary in selecting judges. "But why exclusivity? Judges should have an important role in selecting judges, but not an exclusive role," he said.Jaitley said, "Interpretation of constitutional provision is one thing. But is the judiciary entitled to interpret it in a such a way to mean exactly opposite of what the constitutional provision and the framers of Constitution intended it to be? The judiciary cannot interpret the provision to make judicial appointment akin to membership of Gymkhana Club, where members decide who should be future members."