New Delhi, Oct. 16: The Congress today said it "respected" the Supreme Court verdict on the National Judicial Appointment Commission but expressed "happiness" the constitution bench had admitted that the collegium system of picking judges too had deficiencies.

The Congress was the architect of the proposed system of appointing judges and had backed the Constitution amendment in both Houses of Parliament. So, instead of freely celebrating the snub to the Modi regime, it chose to link the judgment with the larger issue of erosion of constitutional safeguards under the new dispensation.

Although the party said its legal luminaries were studying the order and a comprehensive response would be given later, communications chief Randeep Surjewala said: "Independence of judiciary is a key fundamental of our democracy.

"There can be no compromise on the same. The National Judicial Appointment Commission judgment implicitly reflects lack of confidence in the government which has eroded institutional autonomy and constitutional safeguards over last 17 months."

Indicating that the Congress would not support any government attempt to take on the judiciary in this matter, Surjewala said: "Quashing of NJAC should not be viewed as a confrontation between judiciary and Parliament.

"Instead of looking backward, we must look forward to address the issue at hand. Under no circumstances should elements within or outside the government venture into an atmosphere of confrontation between Parliament and judiciary."

He added: "Important question is not who will appoint judges but how will the judges be appointed. Whether the system of appointment of judges to the higher judiciary can be transparent, accountable and responsible in a fashion that is best for the growth of a healthy democracy while maintaining complete independence of the judiciary is the moot question to be addressed.

"It is also true that the existing collegium system is shrouded in secrecy and over confidentiality. Transparency, accountability and responsibility of the collegium system is a must and has been under question."

Arguing there was no institutional mechanism to check and address complaints of corruption and nepotism in the higher judiciary, Surjewala said: "We are happy to note that the court has itself recognised these shortcomings and has directed to hear arguments on the issue of ensuring transparency, accountability and responsibility of collegium system in the first week of November, 2015."

The legal luminaries in the Congress, however, appeared divided on the verdict and there was an attempt to harmonise the conflicting positions.

Former law minister Salman Khurshid, who had got the bill passed in the Rajya Sabha in 2013, said the Supreme Court had to choose between two imperfect systems and it opted for the less imperfect system.

But Kapil Sibal said: "It was an attempt to have inroads into the judiciary. Just like the CBI, which from a caged parrot has become a captive parrot, the government wanted the judiciary to become captive judiciary."

Contrary to this, Abhishek Singhvi said: "The verdict is disappointing. I am not surprised. Having enjoyed this self-procreation power for decades, I had predicted it would have been unlikely for the judiciary to lose it. Having tried the two systems of appointment (first by the executive and then judiciary), I believe the new NJAC should have been given a fair chance."

But these reactions were in their capacity as senior lawyers. The Congress insisted the official response was given by Surjewala.

The Congress cannot disown the concept as it had pursued a judicial commission to create a new system of appointment of judges for 20 years; four attempts were made in 1990, 1997, 2003 and 2013 to change the system.

There were seven recommendations backing the idea, including from the national commission to review the working of the Constitution headed by Justice Venkatachaliah, administrative reforms commission, law commission and the parliamentary standing committee.

When the Modi government brought the bill in August 2014, the Congress supported it in both Houses despite reservations. But for Congress support, the bill would not have cleared the Rajya Sabha.

The Congress had, however, objected to what it termed the "veto" provision, which said no name would be cleared if two or more members of the commission opposed it. The party said this would make for the executive's primacy in appointing judges instead of restoring the balance that the commission had originally envisaged.

During the debate in the Lok Sabha in 2014 before the bill was passed, Congress leader Veerappa Moily, who had headed the administrative reforms commission, had said: "You have not made many changes in the 2013 bill brought by the UPA....

"One important change is about veto power.... This is what the judiciary is worried about. It may end up with no decision at all. It may be impractical or this may give rise to a lot of conflicts between the judiciary and the executive."