HC sees bid to cast aspersions on collegium

Kochi: An appeal challenging the recommendations made by Kerala high court collegium for appointing new high court judges from among lawyers was intended to cast unsubstantiated aspersions on the collegium, a division bench of the court said.
A bench comprising of Justice P R Ramachandra Menon and Justice Devan Ramachandran was considering an appeal filed by advocate C J Joveson, secretary of National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms (NLC), and Sabu Padma of Rajagiri in Kochi.

The court said in the judgment, “There is, of course, a veiled institution against the afore respondents (lawyers recommended by collegium) that they are ‘kith and kin’ of Judges and of the Advocate General; but even so, they do not say that the said respondents are not eligible or suitable for being considered.”

“The attempt of the appellants, therefore is obviously to cast aspersions on the Collegium of Judges, but without in any manner substantiating it and thereby espousing their agenda of attempting an impossible declaration through this Court, that all the afore judgments (Three Judges Cases, which is the basis of collegium system) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are per incuriam (against statute or authority, therefore of no force),” it added.

Responding to the argument that the three judges cases do not lay down the law correctly and cannot be considered as precedents, the court said in the judgment, “When the law has been so explicitly declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we fail to understand how the writ petitioners could arrogate to themselves the locus or competence to make assertions and seek reliefs contrary to the afore judgments before this Court and we see that their ingenious effort, as has been vehemently argued by their counsel, Sri Mathews J Nedumpara, is to plead that these judgments are all per incuriam and therefore, that they be declared so by this Court.”

Constitutional provisions relating to Union and state judiciaries have been incisively interpreted by the Supreme Court on not less than six occasions through constitution benches, the high court pointed out.

The division bench also noted that it is explicitly conceded in the appeal that the lawyers recommended are eligible and deserving to be elevated as judges. However, there is a reference to these lawyers being kith and kin of judges, former judge, and the advocate general and that the Bar is surprised at the recommendations. While dismissing the appeal and confirming a single bench’s ruling against the appellants, the court said it is tempted to impose exemplary cost to act as a deterrent against such speculative litigations in future but it is refraining from doing so after much contemplation as it would affect the career of the first appellant.