Differences between judiciary and executive are part of democracy; should not be termed 'confrontation': Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju

Differences between the executive and the judiciary are part and parcel of democracy and the same should not be dubbed as 'confrontation', Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju said on Friday..Rijiju said that "some elements" do not want to see India's progress and therefore attempts are being made to portray that there is confrontation between the judiciary and the executive. "As a Minister of Law, have bounden duty to uphold law. Independence of judiciary paramount, Sometimes we are victim of uniformed discussions and debate. CJI has made his mind clear that relation between executive, Legislature and judiciary must be cordial. Some elements do not want to see India progress, in today's online age. There are attempts made to portray situation where government and judiciary are in the differences. Differences of opinion integral part of democracy but cannot be termed confrontation," he said.The Law Minister was speaking at the platinum jubilee celebrations of the Gauhati High Court..Rijiju in his speech underlined that executive, judiciary and legislature have to work together. "Members of bar and judiciary will have to work together. Judges and bar members two sides of same coin, without both cannot dispense justice," said the Union Law Minister. At the same event, Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud said that the relationship between the executive and the judiciary on the administrative side should be marked by robust Constitutional statesmanship.But on judicial side, the confidence and faith of citizens lies in the fierce sense of judicial independence, the CJI underlined..In recent times, the Minister's views on the judiciary have indicated his disagreement with, among other things, the Collegium system and judicial appointments.The war of words between him and the judiciary reached a fever pitch late last year.In October last year, Rijiju had said that the collegium system is too opaque and that nowhere else in the world do judges appoint judges.On November 5, he had said that there is intense politics at play even within the judicial community that is currently responsible for appointing judges and that the Central government would not be 'silent' forever over the 'lack of transparency' in the collegium system.This drew the ire of several former judges who shot back saying that the lack of transparency is actually on the government's part.He later termed the collegium an alien system, and said that if the judiciary feels that the government is sitting on files, then the judges should do as they please and appoint judges on their own.The Supreme Court had quickly expressed its reservations about these statements, that too, in open court.On November 28, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and AS Oka said that the Centre, by holding recommended names back, was frustrating the entire system and affecting the seniority of judges. The bench had asked the Attorney General and Solicitor General to advise the Centre on the issue.Last month, the Law Minister raked up controversy when he said that there are a few (retired) judges who are activists and are part of anti-India gang which is trying to turn judiciary against government and those who turn against the nation will have to pay.He received a lot of flak for the statement and more than 300 lawyers including 62 Senior Advocates practicing before the Supreme Court and various High Courts across the country issued a statement deprecating the Law Minister's comments..Read what Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud spoke at the event here.