Background:

In the case of Shri Mathews J. Nedumpara & Ors. v. Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1005 of 2022, Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara and others filed a writ petition seeking the abolition of the collegium system and challenging the validity of the Supreme Court’s 2015 judgment that declared the National Judicial Commission (NJAC) unconstitutional. The NJAC, proposed to replace the collegium system, was established by the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, and was subsequently signed into law by President Pranab Mukherjee on December 31, 2014.

Key Points:

1. The petitioners argued that the collegium system denied equal opportunities to them and numerous other lawyers.
2. The Registrar of the Supreme Court refused to accept the petition, citing the precedent set by the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench in the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Anr. vs. Union of India. The 2015 judgment declared the NJAC unconstitutional, upholding the collegium system.
3. The Registrar expressed concerns that the present petition aimed to re-agitate settled issues and may have been filed with ulterior motives.
4. Despite a review petition filed in 2018 against the NJAC verdict, the Constitution Bench dismissed it, finding no merit.

Impacts:

• The refusal to receive the petition upholds the authority of the 2015 judgment and reaffirms the collegium system as the prevailing mechanism for judicial appointments.
• It underscores the importance of respecting judicial precedents and discourages the re-litigation of settled matters.
• The rejection highlights the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining the integrity and independence of the judicial appointment process.

Legal Provisions:

• The petition was brought under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which allows individuals to seek enforcement of fundamental rights directly from the Supreme Court.
• The Registrar’s decision was based on Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which permits the refusal of petitions lacking reasonable cause, being frivolous, or containing scandalous matter.

Legal Analysis:

• The Registrar’s decision aligns with the principle of res judicata, preventing the re-litigation of issues already settled by the judiciary.
• The dismissal of the review petition in 2018 further reinforces the finality of the 2015 judgment and precludes reconsideration of the matter.
• The Registrar’s refusal emphasizes the importance of judicial efficiency and the avoidance of unnecessary litigation.

Conclusion:

In declining to receive the petition, the Registrar of the Supreme Court upholds the sanctity of prior judicial pronouncements and ensures the stability of the collegium system for judicial appointments. The decision reinforces the principles of judicial finality, adherence to precedent, and efficiency in the administration of justice.

Source:;

• The Hindu
• TheLawgist

Read Also–SUPREME COURT: STRIDHAN IS THE WIFE’S EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY