Supreme Court Registry Refuses To Accept Writ Petition Challenging Collegium System; Says Litigants Should Not Overburden Courts With Matters Already Adjudicated
The Registrar of the Supreme Court has declined to register a writ petition challenging the collegium system in the selection and appointment of the Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The Registrar invoked Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 to reject the petition.
The Registrar (JA) of the Supreme Court Puneet Sehgal in his order said, “In my opinion, the prayers as have been sought for have already elaborately been covered in the aforementioned judgment which is a judgment in rem dated 16th October, 2015. The present petition, in one manner or the other replicates the issues as have already been put to rest by detailed judgment (supra). In order to prevent needless waste of judicial time and energy, it is critical to ensure litigants do not overburden courts with the matters already stands adjudicated. Additionally, the repeated litigation of an already adjudicated matter is generally not in the public's best interest. The principle of res-judicata bars the invoking of provisions of law as sought by the petitioner. It appears that the present petition has been filed in order to over-reach the principles of settled law or with some ulterior motive.”
The Petition was filed by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara seeking a declaration that the collegium system and favouritism has resulted in the denial of fair opportunity in the selection and appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts to practising lawyers and thousands of others who are equally, if not, more deserving, but less privileged, lest their fundamental right equal opportunity for being considered for such appointments if not deprived.
The Petition also prayed, “to declare that 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 'Supreme Court and High Courts, that the same is not justiciable and that the judgment of this Hon. Court in SCAORA vs. Union of India (2016) 5 SCC 1, popularly known as the NJAC Case, is one rendered void ab Initio, non-est, still-born, one which never ever existed in the eyes of law; and…to declare that the Rules of the Supreme Court mandating that a Curative Petition can be instituted only upon procuring a Certificate of a Senior Advocate that there exist sufficient grounds for its institution is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners and has led to denial of their very right to access to justice.”
The Registrar, while refusing to accept the petition, said that the matter and the issues raised were already examined and adjudicated upon by a Constitutional Bench in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Anr. vs. Union of India. Further, a review petition has also been adjudicated in the National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms its Gen. Secretary and Ors. vs. Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association and Ors.
The Registrar said, “By virtue of the present petition, the petitioners under the garb of original jurisdiction are seeking a review of the judgment dated 16th October 2015 remedy of which has already been exhausted in Review Petition (Civil) No. 3831 of 2018 and the same cannot be legally permitted to be re-agitated again. Moreover, once the Hon'ble Court has been pleased to settle down a law the same cannot be allowed to be reopened by invoking the civil original jurisdiction of this Court.”
Cause Title: Shri Mathews J. Nedumpara & Ors. v. Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India & Ors