SC Junks Plea Seeking Action Against V-P, Rijiju For Remarks On Judiciary

“Shoulders of the Supreme Court are broad enough” to deal with inappropriate statements made by any authority, the top court underlined on Monday even as it declined to entertain a plea demanding action against Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar and Union law minister Kiren Rijiju for their contentious remarks on the judiciary and the collegium system of appointing judges.

“We believe the high court’s view is correct. If any authority has made an inappropriate observation, then the shoulders of the Supreme Court are broad enough to deal with the same, is the correct view,” said a bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Ahsanuddin Amanullah.

The bench affirmed the Bombay high court order of February 9, which emphasised that the credibility of the Supreme Court of India is sky-high and that it cannot be eroded or impinged by statements of individuals.

The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by the Bombay Lawyers Association (BLA) against the Bombay high court order. In its plea before the high court, the lawyers’ body alleged that Rijiju and Dhankhar disqualified themselves to hold the constitutional posts by showing a lack of faith in the Constitution through their conduct and utterances made in public against the Supreme Court and the collegium.

The Association referred to a raft of statements made by Rijiju and Dhankhar over the last year, marking an ongoing confrontation between the executive and the judiciary over the judges’ selection mechanism and the division of powers between the two. The row witnessed Dhankhar and Rijiju questioning the collegium system of appointing judges. The top court responded with stern reminders to the government that the collegium system is the law of the land that must be followed by the government “to a T”.

At various public platforms, Rijiju termed the collegium system “opaque”, “alien to the Constitution” and the “only system in the world where judges appoint people known to them”. Dhankhar, on the other hand, in December 2022, said that the Supreme Court’s 2015 judgment striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act was a “glaring instance” of “severe compromise” of “parliamentary sovereignty and disregard of the “mandate of the people”.

Seeking judicial orders to restrain Dhankhar from discharging duty as the vice president and Rijiju as the cabinet minister for the central government, the lawyers’ body said that the “frontal attack not just on the judiciary but the Constitution by the two executive officials has lowered the prestige of the Supreme Court in public.”

By its February 9 order, the high court dismissed the petition after noting that the constitutional authorities cannot be removed in the manner suggested by the petitioner. “The credibility of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is sky-high. It cannot be eroded or impinged by the statements of individuals. The Constitution of India is supreme and sacrosanct. Every citizen of India is bound by the Constitution and is expected to abide by its constitutional values. The constitutional institutions are to be respected by all, including constitutional authorities and persons holding constitutional posts,” the high court order stated.

On Monday, as soon as the hearing began, the bench expressed its indisposition to entertain the appeal against the high court order. “What is this? Why have you come here? Just to complete the circle?” it asked the counsel appearing for the lawyers’ body and proceeded to reject the appeal with a brief order.

While the appointment of two new Supreme Court judges in February took the top court to its full working strength of 34 judges for the first time since May 2022, a bundle of recommendations and reiterations for the appointment and transfer of high court judges have been pending with the Union government. For instance, the transfer of the acting chief justice of the Madras high court, T Raja, is still to be notified. Though the collegium first proposed his transfer on November 16, 2022, and also reiterated it later.

Appointments of advocates Saurabh Kirpal, R John Sathyan and Somasekhar Sundaresan as judges in the high courts of Delhi, Madras and Bombay, respectively, have also been in limbo for more than six months each despite reiterations by the collegium.

The government, on its part, wrote to the CJI on January 6, underlining that the government is an “important stakeholder in the process of appointment of judges in the Supreme Court and high courts” and therefore, its views should also find a place in preparation for the panel of names who are eligible for being appointed as judges of the constitutional courts. The CJI, according to people aware of the matter, is yet to respond to this.