 Dosto, you understand why I am saying Dosto and not Mitro? Lal Salam, you may be wondering why I am saying Lal Salam, I am not a card holding member. But I think when we are discussing the need for a revolutionary change in the system of judicial appointments, I think the session should begin with Lal Salam. Now, the concept paper of Mr. Surendranath and Mr. Chandir Uday Singh's presentation have covered a lot of theoretical ground. So I want to skip the theory a bit. What does independence and accountability in the superior courts mean? It means what you are seeing on your TV screens for the last four or five days. The Senate hearings in the United States on the confirmation of a nominee, the candidate is being quizzed on his biases, his social and racial philosophies, his relationship or admiration for the executive head and his sexual history. Now, as I said, this is what independence and accountability mean. Because a judge is being screened to see if he is going to be independent of his political loyalties. He is being screened to see if his biases and his philosophies, if they may be called that, would invest him with the qualities of independence required in a Supreme Court judge. And his personal life is being subjected to scrutiny to see if he has the moral character and fiber to occupy a position which he is going to occupy for life. Now, of course, there is no comparison between the US situation and ours in terms of the public scrutiny, which is part of the US system. But I would submit that even within the limitations and constraints of our system, considering the fact our judges, of course, don't have life tenure. But our judges have given themselves the power to strike down amendments of the constitution if they violate the basic structure, which effectively means that all constitutional change is also in the hands of judges. Now, considering the importance which an unelected judiciary wields in our system, I submit that the screening of judges to man the superior courts cannot be confined, as it is currently confined to mere technical professional competence, to mere income tax clearances and intelligence clearances. Their approaches and philosophies have to be screened and that can only be done with a measure of public participation in the judicial appointments process. And therefore it is important that both civil society and the political class are represented in this process. I know all of us in this hall are not comfortable with the present political dispensation. But when we are examining a larger issue, is it or is it not necessary in the interests of accountability that the political class has a say and civil society which represents the consumers of justice that they have a say. Now, a couple of weeks back, of course there have been many good judgments and some very bad judgments which have come out in the last two weeks. The many good, outnumber the few bad. But when the Supreme Court said recently in the 377 judgment that history owes an apology to the gay community, I think the judge who said that just as Indu Malhotra was just being polite, I felt that as the newest judge in the Supreme Court, she didn't want to say what she obviously intended to say. It was not that history owes an apology, not just that history owes an apology to the gay community. The Supreme Court owes an apology if in 2013 the Supreme Court could deliver such a retrograde judgment from whom is the greater apology due. Is it from history or from the court? I do realize that I am being rhetorical but I think I must place before you in stark terms what accountability means. And as Mr. Surendranath pointed out in his presentation, the Supreme Court taking up independence of the judiciary as part of the basic structure, no doubt it is, but has held that primacy in judicial appointments is also part of the basic structure. Where does the Supreme Court get that from? Because the judiciary needs to be independent, not just of the political executive. The judiciary needs to be independent of itself, of its prejudices, of its class biases, its family connections, how is real independence then to be achieved, not by primacy in the matter of judicial appointments. Of course the judiciary would have an independent say for assessing the technical competence of lawyers. So I don't agree with my friend C.U. Singh that the judiciary must have the preponderance say, it's enough as Mr. Surendranath suggests that three senior judges are represented on the proposed commission. I agree with him that a mechanism needs to be worked out because judges who are busy hearing cases and writing judgments can't do this part-time job single-handed, but it is important that equal weight at least be given to other sections and I think the proposed constitution of the commission as suggested by Mr. Surendranath deserves serious consideration by all of us. That is Chief Justice, two other senior judges, so that makes three from the judiciary. Attorney General who occupies a constitutional position and is the institutional head of the bar and two eminent persons to be nominated by the full court of the Supreme Court from the panel submitted by the committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India and the Leader of the Opposition or if the Leader of the Opposition is not there, the largest single opposition party. One of the eminent persons shall be a jurist and the other shall be a person with specialized expert knowledge in any of the branches of social sciences, political science, economics etc. nominated from amongst persons belonging to the scheduled cast, scheduled tribes, other backward classes, minorities or women. I would therefore commend to all of you to adopt a resolution at the end of today's proceedings with whatever changes will now come from the other speakers and from the floor so that we move ahead and not take this NJAC judgment of the Supreme Court as the last word on the subject. Thank you.