In a recent development, the Supreme Court's Registry, on April 24, declined to receive a writ petition aiming to abolish the collegium system and invalidate the 2015 National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) verdict. The petition, spearheaded by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara and others, sought to challenge the status quo established by the apex court's earlier ruling.
The Registrar's decision, outlined in an official order, cited the precedent set by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Anr. vs. Union of India. In this landmark 2015 judgment, the Constitution Bench deemed the NJAC unconstitutional and void, citing its infringement upon the basic structure of the Constitution.
The Registrar underscored that the current petition merely reiterates issues already settled by the aforementioned verdict, hinting at a potential ulterior motive behind its filing. The petitioners argued that the collegium system perpetuates inequality and sought to assert the legitimacy of the NJAC as a manifestation of the "will of the people."
However, the Registrar pointed out that even a review petition filed in 2018 against the NJAC verdict met with dismissal by the Constitution Bench. He interpreted the present petition as an attempt to re-litigate issues already adjudicated upon, a move deemed legally impermissible.
Expressing disapproval of the practice of repetitive litigation on settled matters, the Registrar emphasized its detrimental impact on the judicial process and public interest. Citing Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, he refused to register the petition, effectively denying its consideration by the Court.
The NJAC, envisaged as a replacement for the collegium system, aimed to restructure the process of judicial appointments. Comprising the Chief Justice of India, two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, the law minister, and two eminent persons, the commission was established by the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014. However, its validity was nullified by the Supreme Court's ruling, reaffirming the primacy of the collegium system in judicial appointments.
The refusal to entertain the writ petition signifies the Supreme Court's adherence to precedent and its commitment to upholding judicial integrity. As the debate over judicial appointments continues, this decision underscores the importance of maintaining the sanctity of established legal principles while adapting to evolving societal needs.
