A plea seeking an early hearing of the petition against the Collegium system for the appointment of judges and revival of the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) for the purpose was mentioned in the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said that it will first examine the petition and then consider it.
The petition was filed by advocate Mathews J Nedumpara and seven others challenging to the collegium system of appointment and transfer of judges in the high courts and the top court.
“The instant Petition is filed for a declaration that the collegium system of appointment of judges has resulted in the denial of equal opportunity for the Petitioners and thousands of lawyers who are eligible, meritorious and who deserve to be considered,” the petition said.
It further mentioned that a mechanism in substitution of the Collegium is the need of the hour.
The Petitioners claimed that they have made repeated representations to the Government to bring about the requisite mechanism, however, nothing concrete has taken shape.
“Moreover, rather than the Government, it is for the Supreme Court itself to correct the error caused in creating the Collegium and in quashing the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act. Hence the instant writ petition under Article 32 of the constitution,” the petition said.
The petitioner has further urged: “to declare the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, and the NJAC Act are the will of the people on a matter which falls in the exclusive province of legislative and executive policy, namely, the appointment and transfer of the judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts, that the same is not justiciable and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the NJAC case, is one rendered void ab initio, non-est, still born, one which never ever existed in the eyes of law.”
“Declare that even assuming, without conceding in the least, that the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, and the NJAC Act are amenable to judicial review, nay, is justiciable, then also the judgment of the Supreme Court in the NJAC case will not amount to a repeal of the said Acts and the same continue to be in the statute book and the judgment declaring the said Acts to be unconstitutional will be binding only between the parties to the said case as res judicata and none else,” the petition added.
They further sought to declare that to prevent the mischief as in the NJAC case, where an association under the guise of representing the public at large secures even a legislation of such immense public utility, nay, the will of the people like the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, and the NJAC Act, being declared as unconstitutional without there being any opportunity for the public at large to partake in the case, it is imperative to mandate every PIL litigant to give notice to the public at large, nay to follow a procedure akin to representative suits under Order 1 Rule 8 (2) of the CPC or of a class action as contemplated under Section 245 of the Companies Act.
This report is filed by ANI news service. TheNewsMill holds no responsibility for this content.
