Breaking | Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Against Vice President, Law Minister Over Remarks On Basic Structure Doctrine, Collegium System

Petitioner - the Bombay Lawyers Association sought to restrain them from discharging their duties claiming that the two have disqualified themselves from holding constitutional posts of Vice President and Minister of the Union Cabinet through their conduct, having expressed lack of faith in the Constitution of India.

The petitioner has called the attack on the judiciary as a frontal attack on the constitution and narrated several instances.

“For reasons to be recorded separately PIL is dismissed,” the division bench of ACJ SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne said.

The court heard Advocate Ahmed Abdi for the petitioner and ASG Anil Singh for the respondent. The ASG refuted allegations and said the PIL was a publicity stunt and not maintainable. Constitutional functionaries could only be removed under Articles 67, 102, 103 of the constitution of India and not by a court.

The only question the court asked during the hearing was the provision under which the petitioner wanted it to exercise its discretion to which the petitioner said the court has to lay down the law.

During the hearing Abdi said the attacks on the judiciary were affecting the population at large.

“We come here with great anguish. Whatever is happening is in the public domain. We are not against debate. But should this be held in the parliament, in the court or on the streets? This is lowering the court in the eyes of the people. Is this what their conduct be? This is not only derogatory to the constitution but it is affecting the public at large. It will lead to anarchy. If they are serious they should introduce a bill in the parliament of approach the SC.”

ASG Anil Singh argued, “This is a frivolous petition. Waste of the time of the court. The only object is to get publicity. Before it came before the court the petition was already in the newspaper. See the grounds. The law minister is saying follow the constitution. Where is the question of disrespecting the constitution? They have repeatedly said the constitution should be respected and followed."

Background

The Petitioner claimed between 2021-2023 they have been continuously attacking the “collegium system” by which judges are appointed and the case of Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala in which the SC held by a 7:6 majority that the basic structure of the constitution cannot be amended or tampered with.

After listing several instances of criticism, the plea states that Constitutional functionaries are supposed to have faith and allegiance to the constitution of India, which they have affirmed while taking oath of Office. “Inspite of the facts, they have shown lack of faith in the Constitution and SC by their conduct and their utterances made in public.”

The Supreme Court of India introduced the collegium system in 1993 and in 1998 the Supreme Court, on the president’s reference, expanded the collegium to a five member body, comprising of the CJI and four of his senior most colleagues. In 2015 the Sc re-affirmed the decision in the third Judge’s case and struck down the 99th amendment.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 79