The Supreme Court’s Registry refused to register a writ petition filed by advocate Mathews J Nedumpara and others challenging the validity of the Collegium system of appointing judges in constitutional courts, stating that the plea was filed to overstep established legal principles or with an ulterior motive.
In a six-page order, Supreme Court Registrar Puneet Sehgal on 24th April said that the Collegium system had already been upheld, but the NJAC, which gave the government an equal involvement in judicial appointments, had been overturned by a Constitution Bench in October 2015. In 2018, a review plea against the judgement was also dismissed.
“In my opinion, the prayers as have been sought for have already elaborately been covered in the aforementioned judgment which is a judgment in rem dated 16th October, 2015. The present petition, in one manner or the other replicates the issues as have already been put to rest by detailed judgment (supra). In order to prevent needless waste of judicial time and energy, it is critical to ensure litigants do not overburden courts with the matters already stands adjudicated,” the SC registrar said.
Supreme Court Registry refuses to accept a petition to end the Collegium system of judicial appointments and revive the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), since the question has already been decided #SupremeCourt #Collegium pic.twitter.com/1On0Yaf37V
— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) April 26, 2024
“Additionally, the repeated litigation of an already adjudicated matter is generally not in the public’s best interest. The principle of res-judicata bars the invoking of provisions of law as sought by the petitioner. It appears that the present petition has been filed in order to over-reach the principles of settled law or with some ulterior motive,” he added.
The instant plea was brought on the grounds that the Collegium System of judicial selection has resulted in the denial of equal opportunity to petitioners and thousands of lawyers. The petitioners primarily sought a mechanism to replace the Collegium and a revision of the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014.
Given that the 2018 review plea against the NJAC judgement was also dismissed, the registrar said that that the petitioners, under the garb of Article 32 of the Constitution, are seeking a review of the 2015 verdict.
“By virtue of the present petition, the petitioners under the garb of original jurisdiction are seeking a review of the judgment dated 16th October 2015 remedy of which has already been exhausted in Review Petition (Civil) No. 3831 of 2018 and the same cannot be legally permitted to be re-agitated again. Moreover, once the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to settle down a law the same cannot be allowed to be reopened by invoking the civil original jurisdiction of this Court,” the Registrar said.
Notably, the NJAC was proposed as a body to appoint Chief Justices, Supreme Court judges, and High Court judges, replacing the collegium system. The commission was constituted under the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2014. President Pranab Mukherjee signed the NJAC into an Act on December 31, 2014. According to the Act, the commission was composed of the Chief Justice of India (Chairman of the NJAC), two senior Supreme Court judges, the law minister, and the opposition leader.
