Supreme Court Registry Refuses To Receive Petition To Abolish Collegium System & Revive NJAC

The Registrar, in his order, noted that the matter has already been decided by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on- Record Association and Anr. vs. Union of India., Writ Petition (Civil) No.13/2015. Through this decision, Constitution Bench, in 2015, had declared National Judicial Commission (NJAC) unconstitutional and void as it violated basic Structure of Constitution.

The Registrar firmly stated that the present petition “replicates” the issues that have already been put to rest by the aforesaid verdict. The Registrar also marked that, seemingly, the present petition has been filed to “over-reach” the established principles or “with some ulterior motive.”

The petitioners stated in their petition that the Collegium System has resulted in the denial of "equal opportunity for the petitioners and thousands of lawyers." Moreover, the petition sought to declare that NJAC is the "will of the people" and that the appointment and transfer of the Supreme Court and High Courts' judges "falls in the exclusive province of legislative and executive policy."

However, the Registrar  noted that even a review petition that was filed in 2018 against the NJAC verdict was dismissed by the Constitution Bench. The Bench had carefully gone through the Petition and did not find any merit in the same.

Based on this, he opined that the petitioners, under the garb of Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, are seeking a review of the 2015 judgment. The Registrar categorically said that the issues cannot be “legally permitted to be re-agitated again.”

In addition, he deprecated the practice of repeated litigation of an already adjudicated matter. He said that it not only overburdens the Court but is also not in the public's best interest.

In view of the above projection, the registrar refused to receive the petition in light of Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Order XV Rule 5 reads as follows: “The Registrar may refuse to receive a petition on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause or is frivolous or contains scandalous matter, but the petitioner may within fifteen days of the making of such order, appeal by way of motion, from such refusal to the Court.”

“Therefore, in view of the said aspect as discussed above and in light of the reconsideration of the registration of the present matter, I am of the considered view that this is a fit case which attracts Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. and entails non-registration. Accordingly, I hereby, hold that the registration of the present case was not proper and by virtue of Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, I hereby, decline to receive the same.,” the order stated.

The NJAC was a body that was proposed to make appointments of Chief Justices, Supreme Court judges, and High Court judges and to replace the collegium system.

The commission was established by the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014. The NJAC was signed into an Act by President Pranab Mukherjee on December 31, 2014. According to the Act, the composition of the commission was the Chief Justice of India (Chairman of the NJAC), two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, the law minister, and two eminent persons. These two persons, in turn, were required to be selected by a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India, and the Leader of the Opposition.

Case Title: Shri Mathews J. Nedumpara & Ors. v. Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India & Ors., WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1005 OF 2022