NEW DELHI: A three-judge Supreme Court bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, on Wednesday quashed a 12-day-old initiative by a two-judge SC bench to examine delay in finalisation of memorandum of procedure (MoP) to select persons for appointment as judges of constitutional courts.
The CJI-led bench dismissed the petition, after withdrawing it from the twojudge bench to itself, to avoid a possible conflict between the apex court's administrative side, which through the collegium is handling MoP finalisation, and the judicial side in the shape of the twojudge bench which sought to scrutinise reasons behind delay in firming up the MoP.
The bench minced no words in recording complete disagreement with the twojudge bench's decision and said: "In view of the Constitution bench judgment, there is no necessity to entertain this petition. This is not a matter to be taken up (for hearing) on judicial side." Additional solicitors general Maninder Singh and P S Narasimha said the Constitution bench has settled the issue and there is no need to reopen it on the judicial side.
After quashing a unanimously passed law in Parliament to set up a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), a five-judge Constitution bench, in December 2015, ordered the Centre to redraft MoP in consultation with the CJI and four other members of the collegium to ensure transparency in the appointment of judges to the SC and high courts.
The draft MoP has been getting tossed between the CJI-headed collegium and the law ministry for nearly two years. Advocate R P Luthra had filed a petition questioning appointment of judges after December 2015 without the MoP being finalised, terming it as a violation of the Constitution bench's judgement and right to equality and non-discrimination in selection of persons for appointment as judges.
A bench of Justices A K Goel and U U Lalit, who are not part of the collegium, had on October 27 found no merit in the plea against judges' appointments since December 2015, but decided to scrutinise in "public interest" the reasons for delay in MoP finalisation.
Justices Goel and Lalit had said: "Even though no time limit was fixed by this court for finalisation of the MoP, the issue cannot linger on indefinitely...We also find substance in the submission that MoP must provide for a mechanism for cutting down delay in appointment of regular chief justices of HCs."
The bench had also referred to contempt proceedings against Calcutta HC Judge C S Karnan and felt the need for a corrective mechanism to rein in errant judges, given the cumbersome alternative of the removal process.
Given the sensitive phase in which consultation for MoP finalisation rested at present, the CJI used his powers as the sole authority for listing of cases and withdrew Luthra's petition from the bench of Justices Goel and Lalit to list it before a bench comprising him and Justices AK Sikri and Amitava Roy.
The CJI-led bench dismissed the petition, after withdrawing it from the twojudge bench to itself, to avoid a possible conflict between the apex court's administrative side, which through the collegium is handling MoP finalisation, and the judicial side in the shape of the twojudge bench which sought to scrutinise reasons behind delay in firming up the MoP.
The bench minced no words in recording complete disagreement with the twojudge bench's decision and said: "In view of the Constitution bench judgment, there is no necessity to entertain this petition. This is not a matter to be taken up (for hearing) on judicial side." Additional solicitors general Maninder Singh and P S Narasimha said the Constitution bench has settled the issue and there is no need to reopen it on the judicial side.
After quashing a unanimously passed law in Parliament to set up a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), a five-judge Constitution bench, in December 2015, ordered the Centre to redraft MoP in consultation with the CJI and four other members of the collegium to ensure transparency in the appointment of judges to the SC and high courts.
The draft MoP has been getting tossed between the CJI-headed collegium and the law ministry for nearly two years. Advocate R P Luthra had filed a petition questioning appointment of judges after December 2015 without the MoP being finalised, terming it as a violation of the Constitution bench's judgement and right to equality and non-discrimination in selection of persons for appointment as judges.
A bench of Justices A K Goel and U U Lalit, who are not part of the collegium, had on October 27 found no merit in the plea against judges' appointments since December 2015, but decided to scrutinise in "public interest" the reasons for delay in MoP finalisation.
Justices Goel and Lalit had said: "Even though no time limit was fixed by this court for finalisation of the MoP, the issue cannot linger on indefinitely...We also find substance in the submission that MoP must provide for a mechanism for cutting down delay in appointment of regular chief justices of HCs."
The bench had also referred to contempt proceedings against Calcutta HC Judge C S Karnan and felt the need for a corrective mechanism to rein in errant judges, given the cumbersome alternative of the removal process.
Given the sensitive phase in which consultation for MoP finalisation rested at present, the CJI used his powers as the sole authority for listing of cases and withdrew Luthra's petition from the bench of Justices Goel and Lalit to list it before a bench comprising him and Justices AK Sikri and Amitava Roy.
Get latest news & live updates on the go on your pc with News App. Download The Times of India news app for your device.
