SC declines to entertain plea against VP, Law Minister

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a petition filed by the Bombay Lawyers Association challenging a high court decision refusing to entertain its plea against Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju and Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar for their remarks on judiciary and the collegium system for appointment of judges.

A bench headed by Justice S.K. Kaul told the counsel, representing the petitioner, “What is this? Why have you come here?….” The bench said that it believes that the high court view is correct and if any authority has made an inappropriate statement, the apex court has a broad view to deal with it and declined to entertain the plea.

The plea said, “It is further submitted that Respondent no. 1 and 2 have violated the oath that they took at the time of assuming their respective offices, and, therefore, they have forfeited their right to continue in that office, by disrespecting this Hon’ble Court and Constitution of India”.

The lawyers’ body has challenged the February 9 order passed by the Bombay High Court dismissing its plea on the ground that it was not a fit case to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The association claimed that Rijiju and Dhankhar showed lack of faith in the Constitution with their remarks and conduct.

“Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have launched frontal attack on the institution of judiciary, particularly the Hon’ble Supreme Court in most derogatory language without any recourse which is available under the constitutional scheme to change the status quo as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India”, said the plea.

The plea added that respondent No.1 is the vice president of India as provided under Article 63 of the Constitution and affirmed his oath bearing allegiance to the Constitution vide Article 69. “Respondent No.1’s attack upon the judiciary is also an attack on the Constitution upon which he had sworn an oath to bear true faith and allegiance”, it added.

Rijiju had said the collegium system of appointing judges was “opaque and not transparent” and Dhankhar had questioned the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment that gave the basic structure doctrine.