Supreme Court rejects PIL on appointment of judges

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a PIL filed by a lawyer challenging the appointment of four judges to the apex court—justices A.M. Kanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, M.M. Shantanagouder and L. Nageswara Rao in July 2016.

A three-judge bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and justices A.K. Sikri and Amitav Roy dismissed a special leave petition filed by advocate R.P. Luthra who was aggrieved by the rejection of his petition by the Delhi high court.

On October 27 a bench of justices A.K. Goel and Uday Lalit had sought the assistance of the attorney-general K.K. Venugopal to examine the reasons for the delay in finalising the Memorandumof Procedure relating to judgs appointment. As CJI told the petitioner that its dismissed as these are not matters to be decided on the judicially side, Mr. Luthra said he had a right to be heard before the matter was dismissed.

The CJI told the petitioner that after the Constitution bench had upheld the collegium system of appointments and quashed the National Judcial Appointments Commission law, there was no need to go into these issues. Senior advocate K.V. Viswanathan, who was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court submitted that it was a matter of great concern that the MoP was yet to be finalised even after two years and there was a feeling that there was delay in judical appointments.

Justice Amitav Roy told Mr. Luthra “your main grievance that you were not considered for appointment as a judge of this court.” Mr. Luthra asked at the top of his voice “your lordship what do you know about me. Do I have a right to be heard or not. This is a temple of justice. You dismiss my petition after hearing me.”

Justice Sikri told the petitioner “this is not a drama to be enacted in the court. Please maintain the decorum of this court. We have heard you and your petition is dismissed.” In a brief order the Bench said there was no need to consider the petitioner’s prayer after the constitution bench had decided the matter.

In his petition, Mr. Luthra contended that the constitution bench judgment of October 2015 quashing the National Judicial Appointments Commission law and restoring the collegium system of appointment had envisaged finalisation of MoP by the Union government in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. As of now, the much sought after reforms of secretariat is not yet established.

He said the transparency, as sought after for the appointments are not established. The mechanism to deal with the complaints against the selection and its objectivity is not established. No eligibility criteria for the appointment of judges to the apex court are laid down till date, and in absence of the same, the elements of nepotism, favoritism and arbitrariness cannot be ruled out. Further, such recommendations and the appointment based on such recommendations would be in complete violation of Articles 14,16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

Though two years had elapsed the MoP is yet to be finalised and hence the recommendations made by the apex court collegium for appointment of the four Judges are void and could not be acted upon, he said and sought a direction in this regard.