Delhi High Court Rejects Plea Seeking Review Of Judgment Dismissing PIL Against CJI Chandrachud’s Appointment

“Petitioner is not able to show any error apparent on face of record. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed on November 11, 2022. The petition is accordingly dismissed,” the bench said.

The petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari in the PIL had argued that the appointment of Justice Chandrachud was made in violation of the provisions of the constitution. He had prayed for an immediate stay on Justice Chandrachud's appointment.

The court rejected the review plea after observing that the same has been filed “in the guise of seeking a re-hearing of the petition” which is not permissible in review.

During the hearing, Tiwari, speaking in Hindi, submitted that his plea was dismissed with cost of Rs 1 lakh without hearing him in detail, adding that he was not even provided with a copy of the order in Hindi language.

“Bas aap ye bata dijiye, isme kahan galti hai? Mere se galti kya hui hai? Maine aisa kaunsa apraadh kiya hai? Agar mujhe apraadh pata chalta toh mai faansi par chadd jaata. Ab beh nahi hai (Just tell me, what is wrong in it? What wrong did I commit? What crime have I committed? If I am made aware about my crime, I will embrace gallows. I don't fear it now), ” Tiwari said.

He added: “Hindi ke prati humari kuch toh bhaavnaaye hai. Bharat swatantra ho chuka hai. Ya abhi bhi Partantrata hai?”

To this, Justice Sachdeva asked Tiwari as to how many languages are there in India. He responded that there are 22 languages as per the Constitution of India.

”How will you talk to those who do not speak Hindi language,” the court asked Tiwari.

As Tiwari referred to Sanskrit language, Justice Sachdeva responded: “Unko ab sanskrit sikhaayenge? (Will all those people be taught Sanskrit now)?”

During the hearing, Tiwari also submitted there is no provision for imposing a cost of Rs 1 Lakh. He also said his friends were not allowed to enter the court. 

The court said anyone can view the hearing virtually and there is no restriction. "There is no requirement of password. No one is required to seek permission," said Justice Sachdeva. 

Last week, Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma led bench recused from hearing the review plea.

While dismissing the PIL, the bench in November 2022 had observed that the offices held by constitutional functionaries are not open to denigration by "self-styled warriors of public interest" on the basis of superficial allegations, having no basis in law or fact.

Calling the plea a classic case of 'wishful thinking', the bench had termed it as a fit case to be "crushed at the threshold" in the strongest terms.

The court had also noted that various scandalous allegations have been made in the PIL against the former Chief Justices of India without there being any material to support the same.

Tiwari, who called himself "a well-trained intelligent common citizen of the nation of India", in the PIL had said that an inquiry should be conducted by the security agencies against the new CJI to ascertain he "does not have any kind of relation with the anti-nationals and Naxalite Christian terrorists".

He had also claimed that Justice Chandrachud "will be aware in destroying the traitors who are plotting to assassinate the Prime Minister."

Title: SANJEEV KUMAR TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 44