IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Nedumparanedumpara.com/pdf/DOC-20161224-WA0023.pdf2016/12/24 ·...

A

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

National Lawyers’ Campaign For Judicial Transparency and Reforms and Others …PETITIONERS

Versus Hon'ble Shri Justice J.S. Khehar and Others … RESPONDENTS

P A P E R – B O O K

[FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE] With

I.A. NO.______/2016 INTERIM APPLCTION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE THE CASE IN-

PERSON AND

I.A. No.______/2016

INTRIM APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND

ARGUE THE CASE BY COUNSEL MR.MATHEWS

J.NEDUMPARA ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

(Rohini M.Amin) Petitioner-in-person

A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SL.NO. DATE OF RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PAGE(S)

1. ORDER DATED

2. ORDER DATED

3. ORDER DATED

4. ORDER DATED

5. ORDER DATED

6. ORDER DATED

7. ORDER DATED

8. ORDER DATED

9. ORDER DATED

10. ORDER DATED

B

I N D E X

Sl. No. Particulars Page Nos.

1. Listing Proforma A1-A2

2. Synopsis with dates B-C

3. Writ Petition

4. Appendix. The Constitution of India

5. Annexure P-1:- Copy of the representation dated 4th December,

2016.

6. Annexure P-2:- Copy of Notification dated 19.12.2016 appointing Hon'ble Shri Justice J.S. Khehar as the next CJI.

7. Annexure P-3:- A copy of the Report/recommendation dated

06.12.2016 of the Parliamentary Committee on Law and Justice

8. I.A for permission to file the case in-

person

9. I.A for permission to appear and

argue the case by counsel

Mr.Mathews J.Nedumpara on behalf

of the petitioners.

C

PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING

SECTION –X The case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box):

Central Act : (Title) Constitution of India

Section: Art. 32 of Constitution of India

Central Rule : (Title) NA

Rule No(s): NA

State Act : (Title)NA

Section: NA

State Rule : (Title)NA

Rule No(s):NA

Impugned Interim Order: NA

Impugned Final Order/Decree : NA

High Court: (Name): Na

Names of Judges: NA

Tribunal/Authority: Nil

Nature of matter:

D

Civil Criminal

2. (a) Petitioner/appellant No.1 : National Lawyers’ Campaign For Judicial Transparency

And Reforms

b) e-mail ID: [email protected] (c) Mobile phone number: 9820535428

3, (a)Respondent No.1: Hon'ble Shri Justice J.S. Khehar

(b) e-mail ID: NIL

(c) Mobile phone number: NA

4. (a) Main category classification: 24 (Appointments etc. of Constitutional Functionaries)

(b) Sub classification: 2407(Others)

5. Not to be listed before: NA

6. Similar/Pending matter: WPc (D) 41674 of 2016 disposed of on

23.12.2016

7. Criminal Matters: NA

(a) Whether accused/convict has surrendered: Yes No

(b) FIR No. NA Date: NA

(c) Police Station: NA

(d) Sentence Awarded: NIL

(e) Sentence Undergone: nil

8. Land Acquisition Matters: Na

(a) Date of Section 4 notification: Na

(b) Date of Section 6 notification: NA

(c) Date of Section 17 notification: NA

9. Tax Matters: State the tax effect: NA

10. Special Category (first petitioner/appellant only): NA

Senior citizen 65 years SC/ST Woman/child Disabled Legal

Aid case/In custody

E

11. Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident Claim matters):

NA

12. Decided cases with citation: NA

Date:23-12-2016

(Rohini M.Amin) Petitioner-in-person

F

.

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES

The instant is a Petition filed by the National Lawyers’

Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms in the light

of the fact that upon demitting his office as CJI by Hon'ble

Shri Justice T.S. Thakur on 4th January, 2017, a new CJI in

His Lordship’s place will have to be appointed. Since

independence, except during the regime of Indira Gandhi as

Prime Minister when seniority of Judges was bypassed and a

junior Judge of the Supreme Court was appointed as the CJI,

as a matter of convention, the seniormost Judge of the

Supreme Court has been appointed as the CJI. To the

knowledge of the Petitioners, the practice in vogue has been

for the outgoing CJI to initiate the process of appointment of

the next CJI by recommending the name of the senior most

Judge of the Supreme Court. This convention, undoubtedly, is

a healthy one. The senior most Puisne Judge who, having

served the country for such a long time as a Judge of a High

Court, as its Chief Justice and then as a Judge of the Supreme

Court, is entitled, very legitimately, to expect that he would be

appointed as the next CJI and when the senior most Judge is

appointed as the CJI, the room for political and other

B

maneuvering or other extraneous considerations influencing

the appointment of the next CJI is ruled out. It is in spite of

this that the General Body of the 1stPetitioner in its meeting

held on 22.12.2016 resolved to institute the instant Writ

Petition seeking a departure from the aforesaid convention,

one, which on the face of it is worthy of obeisance but, if

followed without a critical analysis, is certain to do greater

amount of public harm than good.

The List of Dates

08.12.2016 General Body of the 1stPetitioner in its meeting

held on 08.12.2016 resolved to institute the

W.P.(C) D 41674/2016 seeking the appointment of

New CJI.

19.12.2016 The warrant of appointment of Hon'ble Shri

Justice J.S. Khehar as the next CJI is signed by

His Excellency President of India

22.12.2016 Emergency General Body of the 1stPetitioner in its

meeting resolved to institute the instant quo warranto

writ petition on the apporintmnet of Hon'ble Shri Justice

J.S. Khehar as Chief Justice of India.

04.01.2017 Upon demitting the office as CJI by Hon'ble

Shri Justice T.S. Thakur on 4th January, 2017,

a new CJI in His Lordship’s place will have to

be appointed.

23.12.2016 The instant Writ Petition (Civil) Filed.

C

1



WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.__________ OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

1. National Lawyers’ Campaign For

Judicial Transparency and Reforms, represented by its General Secretary Rohini M Amin, having its registered office at: 304, Hari Chambers,

3rd Floor, 54/68 SBS Marg, Near Old Custom House, Fort Mumbai- 400 023 …PETITIONER No.1

2. RR Nair,

Advocate E 504 Blue Fields,

GL Compound, Powai, Mumbai 400076 … PETITIONER No.2

3. Bijoy Krishna Adhikary Vice President NLC

Advocate, Indian Inhabitant of Kolkata 13, Bireswar Dhole Lane,

Post Alam Bazar, Dist. Bara Nagar, Kolkata – 700 035 … PETITIONER No.3 4. Rohini M Amin

General Secretary NLC Advocate, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai,

Residing at: B/705, Nirman Apts. R.J Marg, Vikas Nagar, Pump House, Andheri (East) Mumbai- 400 093 … PETITIONER No.4

5. Jasvinder Singh Sohal Indian inhabitant of Mumbai

19, Vithal Nagar Society, 11th Road, Juhu Scheme,

Mumbai – 400 049. … PETITIONER No.5 6. Rajinder Kaur Sokhi

2

Advocate, Indian Inhabitant of Thane, 201, Ram Shyam Apartment,

Lal Chakki, Near Dashmesh Darbar Gurudwara,

Ullhasnagar- 421 004 Dist. Thane. … PETITIONER No.6 7. Sunil Gupta Indian inhabitant of Mumbai,

Flat No.1, 3rd Floor, Mitra Kunj, 16, Pedder Road, Mumbai – 400 026 … PETITIONER No.7 8. Sapan Shrivatava

Indian Inhabitant of Thane Aged about 40 Years

D-102, Natraj Dharshan, Ganesh Nagar, Thane: 421 202

… PETITIONER No.8

9. C.J Joveson Advocate Cheruvathur House, Near Block A 335, Rabindranath Tagore Road, Kurla Camp, Ulhas Nagar- 421004

District Thane, Maharashtra … PETITIONER No.9

10. Jacob Samuel Advocate,

Kalluvalayathil Puthen Veedu, Thazhakara P.O., Mavelikara – 690102, Alappuzha, Kerala. … PETITIONER No.10

11. Bijimon, S/o. K.N. Prabhakaran, Advocate, aged about 42 years, Kambisseril Lekshmi Nivas, Vallikunnam Post, Pin 690501, District Alappuzha, Kerala. … PETITIONER No.11

12. Motwani Jayesh Gope Aged about 25 Years, Law Student Residing at 201/202 Pleasure Park, Opp. Pinto Park, O.T Section,

Ulhasnagar- 421 003 District- Thane, Maharashtra State. … PETITIONER No.12 13. Raj C. Makhija,

#805, Giriraj Bldg.

3

8th Floor Neelkanth Valley, Near Somaiya College, Rajawadi Ghatkopar (east),

Mumbai- 400077. … PETITIONER No.13 14. Ruta Awhad,

C/11 Vishwajeet Socty, Veer Savarkar Rd,

Naupada, Thane, Maharashtra. … PETITIONER No.14

15. Jose Kunju JP, Advocate

47 yrs,#328,6th cross, Arekere Mico Layout, 1st Stage, Bangalore 560076. … PETITIONER No.15

16. S. K. Gupta Advocate 25B, Pocket 1, Mayur Vihar, Phase III

New Delhi … PETITIONER No.16

Versus

1. Hon'ble Shri Justice J.S. Khehar, Chief Justice of India-designate, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi. … RESPONDENT NO.1

2. The Union of India,

represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, 4th Floor, A-Wing,

Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001. … RESPONDENT NO.2

3. The Supreme Court of India,

represented by its

Registrar General, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi. … RESPONDENT NO.3

4. Hon'ble Shri. Anand Sharma

Chairperson,

4

Parliamentary Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice,

Room No.206, Second Floor, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi. … RESPONDENT NO.4

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SEEKING DECLARATION AND OTHER RELIEFS. TO

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE

NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

The 1st Petitioner, National Lawyers’ Campaign for

Judicial Transparency and Reforms (NLC), is an organization of

non-elite class of lawyers, the ordinary class of first generation

lawyers – the sons and daughters of taxi drivers, farmers,

fishermen, rickshaw pullers, daily wagers, teachers et al. The

proclaimed agendas of the 1st Petitioner are:

(a) Advertisement of vacancies of Judges of the higher judiciary, invitation

of applications and references , open and transparent selection and appointment, instead of the current system of appointment by

invitation where only the elite and super elite are invited, in a democratic legitimacy in the matter of selection and appointment of

Judges;

(b) Creation of a Judicial Ombudsman or such other mechanism as is

contemplated in the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2012 or the Charter/Resolution called the “Restatement of Values of Judicial

Life” passed by the Supreme Court of India in its Full Court meeting

held on May 7, 1997, which was ratified and adopted by Indian

5

Judiciary in the Chief Justices’ Conference 1999 or any other

meaningful mechanism where grievances against Judges could be addressed;

(c) Audio/video-recording of proceedings of all Courts and Tribunals and in

particular the Supreme Court and High Courts, which will ensure

transparency and accountability;

(d) Reintroduction of the transfer policy, which was described by the

Seven-Judge Constitution Bench in Judges-1 case as a panacea for allegations of favouritism and conflict of interest where a lawyer is

elevated as a Judge of the very same High Court where he has been practicing;

(e) Bring an end to the “Uncle Judge Syndrome” by transferring Judges whose immediate relatives are practicing in the very same Court;

(f) Abolition of the practice of designation of Advocates as a Senior

Advocates or, at least, introduction of a common dress code for all

lawyers, including those who are designated as Senior Advocates;

(g) Repeal of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for the said Act constitutes to be the one single obstacle which has rendered freedom of speech

enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution redundant. In none of the

civil law countries, the law of contempt exists. In England, in the 19th Century itself, contempt by scandalizing a Court was declared to be

obsolete;

(h) Introduce a transparent mechanism in the appointment of Standing

Counsel/Panel Advocates/Legal Officers for Central and State Governments, Statutory Bodies, Public Sector Undertakings etc., so

that the prevailing system of nepotism, political favour etc., are

brought to an end;

(i) Simplification of procedures to make the judiciary as an institution for the common man rather than it being meant to be for the Judges and

elite lawyers.

(j) To bring an end to the tribunalization of justice, strengthen the Civil Courts by

rendering them as the true foundation of justice delivery system.

(k) The jurisdiction under Articles 226, 32 and 136 of the Constitution of India today is a euphemism for absolute discretion and arbitrary exercise of power by the constitutional Courts without there in existence any mechanism to regulate the said exercise of power. If a proper mechanism is brought in without the superior Courts being divested of their limitless power, it could be ensured that such power is not abused, for which the only way is to require the superior Courts exercising unlimited powers to frame issues, allow the parties to adduce evidence and bring in at least a modicum of fairness in the decision making process.

The 2nd Petitioner is the National Executive Committee member of NLC, the 3rd Petitioner is the Vice-President of the 1st Petitioner. The 4th Petitioner is the General Secretary of the NLC. Petitioner No. 5 is a member of the general public and a campaigner. Petitioner No. 6 is a practicing advocate from

Maharashtra. Petitioner No. 7 is a member of the general public and a campaigner. Petitioner No. 8 is a member of gerenarl Public and a campaigner. Petitioner No. 9 is a practicing advocate from Mumbai. Petitioner No. 10 is a practicing advocate from Kerala so too Petitioner No. 11. Petitioner No. 12 is a law

6

student. Petitioner No. 13 and 14 are campaigners and

Respondent 15 and 16 are practicing Advocates from Bangalore

and Delhi Respectively. The legal status of the Respondent is

manifest from the very cause title itself and requires no

elaboration. Though it is a fundamental principle that in any

judicial proceeding all necessary and proper parties should be

arraigned, the Petitioners refrain from doing so for practical

considerations. Ideally speaking, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of

India (CJI) ought to have been made a Respondent to this

petition. The judgments of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu

Kamath v. Ahmed, AIR 1955 SC 233, and S.P. Gupta v. Union of

India, AIR 1982 SC 149, underline this. In S.P. Gupta v. Union

of India the then CJI Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, who was a

Respondent, not only had the humility to engage a lawyer and

but also to file an affidavit in the Supreme Court, of which he was

the CJI. That was then. Things today, at least from the practical

angle, are quite different. Therefore, only the Union of India

alone is arraigned as a Respondent – not even the learned

Attorney General. Instead, on account of the practical

considerations, the Petitioners feel it appropriate to seek the

leave of this Hon'ble Court to arraign all necessary and proper

parties who have been presently left to be arraigned, in due

course of time.

2. The instant petition is instituted in the light of the fact

that upon demitting his office as CJI by Hon'ble Shri Justice T.S.

7

Thakur on 4th January, 2017, a new CJI in His Lordship’s place

will have to be appointed. Since independence, except during

the regime of Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister when seniority of

Judges was bypassed and a junior Judge of the Supreme Court

was appointed as the CJI, as a matter of convention, the

seniormost Judge of the Supreme Court has been appointed as

the CJI. To the knowledge of the Petitioners, the practice in

vogue has been for the outgoing CJI to initiate the process of

appointment of the next CJI by recommending the name of the

senior most Judge of the Supreme Court. This convention,

undoubtedly, is a healthy one. The senior most Puisne Judge

who, having served the country for such a long time as a Judge

of a High Court, as its Chief Justice and then as a Judge of the

Supreme Court, is entitled, very legitimately, to expect that he

would be appointed as the next CJI and when the senior most

Judge is appointed as the CJI, the room for political and other

maneuvering or other extraneous considerations influencing the

appointment of the next CJI is ruled out. It is in spite of this that

the General Body of the 1st Petitioner in its meeting held on

08.12.2016 resolved to institute the instant Writ Petition seeking

a departure from the aforesaid convention, one, which on the

face of it is worthy of obeisance but, if followed without a critical

analysis, is certain to do greater amount of public harm than

good. The Petitioners beg to deal with the same briefly as infra.

3. Though, in our constitutional scheme judiciary is the

8

third pillar that provides checks and balances over the executive

and the legislature to act within their provinces as are clearly

earmarked by the Constitution. With the advent of Public Interest

Litigation (PIL), a pro bono jurisprudence abused beyond

conception today, India is ruled by the judiciary. That being the

reality, the august office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) has

assumed an importance which is unparalleled anywhere in the

world. Who should be the next CJI and what should be the

tenure of the next incumbent are not matters concerning the

persons to be so appointed, but of the public at large.

4. Article 124 of the Constitution, which provides for the

appointment of the CJI, does not specifically say that the person

to be so appointed should be even a Judge of the Supreme Court

of India, much less the senior most Judge. It is said that

Jawaharlal Nehru as Prime Minister even considered appointment

of Justice M.C. Chagla, the then Chief Justice of the High Court of

Bombay, as the CJI. However, the convention of the outgoing

CJI recommending the name of the senior-most Judge by date of

appointment to the Supreme Court for appointment by the

President of India as the next CJI, which the Petitioners do not

dispute to be an unhealthy one, and the blind obeisance to

seniority have meant India having had 43 CJIs in the last 66

years of our independence with the tenure of some of them as

short as 21 days.

9

5. The supersession of three eminent Judges of the

Supreme Court during the regime of Indira Gandhi, rightly invited

a great public outcry, as the said supersession was for manifestly

mala fide reasons, but this incident reinforced the sacrosanctity

of seniority rule. The judgment in the Second Judges case, which

meant the Supreme Court rewriting the Constitution in the name

of interpretation, further sanctified the doctrine of seniority.

Therefore, unless the current Government is bold enough to

deviate from the concept that the senior most Judge of the

Supreme Court shall become the CJI and if that failed to gain

support of the various political parties, particularly the Congress

Party, the principal opposition party, the appointment of Hon'ble

Shri Justice J.S. Khehar as the next CJI is a fait accompli. The

Petitioners are not very enthusiastic about such a scenario. The

reason is the concern for transparency and accountability. The

Petitioners beg to delve into the same briefly, as infra:

6. Hon'ble Shri Justice Khehar, undoubtedly, is one of

the most upright Judges of the Supreme Court; the Petitioners

are all proud of His Lordship. While sons of sitting Judges with

two or three years of experience, for instance the Bombay High

Court, earn far more than even senior lawyers with a standing of

more than 30 years, Hon'ble Shri Justice Khehar’s son, who

practices in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, does not earn

anything near to them. He only charges a decent amount as his

fee. Nobody could, therefore, point a finger at Hon'ble Shri

10

Justice Khehar when it comes to his honesty, integrity and

uprightness. His Lordship is a real diamond in that sense. But

we, hundreds and thousands of lawyers and millions and millions

of citizens of the country are, with much respect, constrained to

consider Hon'ble Shri Justice Khehar not to be the most ideal

Judge to be appointed as the next CJI since they consider the

judgment authored by His Lordship in the NJAC case to be a coup

d’état. They consider that Hon'ble Shri Justice Khehar being a

member of the collegium which was sought to be abolished by

the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and the

National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014 (the Acts,

for short), which were challenged in the said case, by quashing

the said Acts as unconstitutional, usurped to himself the power of

appointment of Judges, for, but for the said judgment, His

Lordship would not have been a part of the NJAC which had only

three seniormost Judges as its members. His Lordship by

quashing the NJAC has reserved the right to appoint himself as

the CJI, as, it is only by upholding the Collegium can he appoint

himself as the next CJI. Had the NJAC Act 2014 been upheld, the

transparent mechanism therein provided would have appointed

only the most meritorious and deserving as the Chief Justice.

Hence, the Constitution Bench headed by His Lordship did not

even allow the plea that a challenge to the said Acts is not

justiciable for being in the province of legislative policy. During

the time of hearing, with much respect, His Lordship heard only

11

the few elite class of lawyers who appear before His Lordship,

day in and day out, with fine tuned sycophancy and flattery

aimed at maintaining a “face value” which they lend at sky high

fees. The Petitioners are not at all suggesting that Hon'ble Shri

Justice Khehar has even in the wildest of his dreams ever

thought of quashing the aforesaid Act to restore the collegium

system of appointment of Judges and thereby ensured his own

appointment as the CJI based on seniority. However, His

Lordship by presiding over the Five-Judge Constitution Bench and

authoring the judgment in the NJAC case quashing the said Acts

has given room for thousands and thousands of the members of

the legal fraternity and the common men of the country to think

that His Lordship thereby has averted even the remotest chance

of the NJAC, which will consist of two laymen titled as ‘eminent

persons’, becoming a reality and appointing Hon'ble Shri Justice

Chelameswar as the next CJI or anyone else, whom the NJAC

consider as most appropriate; so too His Lordship usurped to

himself the power to appoint not merely Chief Justices and

Judges of the High Courts, but even Judges of the Supreme

Court, his peers. Had the NJAC come into force with His Lordship

as the CJI, despite being its Chairman His Lordship would have

been only one of its members. Newspaper reports of 4th

December, 2016 state that if His Lordship is appointed as the

next CJI on 4th January, 2017, the collegium to be headed by His

Lordship will have to appoint as many as 7 Judges to the

12

Supreme Court, sans any transparency. Had the NJAC become a

reality, it probably could have appointed Hon'ble Shri Justice

Chelameswar as the CJI considering that His Lordship indeed is

senior to Hon'ble Shri Justice Khehar as a High Court Judge; that

Hon'ble Shri Justice Chelameswar stood for transparency and

upheld the aforesaid Acts and has almost a tenure of two years

as the CJI.

7. With utmost respect the Petitioners beg to state that

the judgment in the NJAC case has done irreversible damage to

the institution of judiciary and its democratic legitimacy, nay, the

very democracy itself. There is no real way to come out of the

costly folly which this judgment has meant to be. The said

judgment meant the annihilation/killing of the dream of the

people of India to have the Judges of the higher judiciary being

appointed through a mechanism which is independent of the

executive and equally independent of the judiciary so that the

most meritorious men and women of character and integrity are

appointed to the seat of justice.

8. With much respect, the Petitioners also consider

Hon'ble Shri Justice Khehar to be not the right choice as the next

CJI, for, His Lordship’s temperament would prove him to be

otherwise. The Petitioners are pained that His Lordship expresses

too much of respect for the high profile lawyers, very patently,

much to the discouragement of the ordinary and the less

13

privileged. His Lordship might be having all the concern,

affection and regard for the young and non-designated lawyers

too, but, unfortunately, with much respect, the opposite is felt,

and, to appear before His Lordship, an average lawyer requires

exemplary courage. There are a few other connected reasons,

which do not need any substantiation. However, the Petitioners

wish to state one reason out of them. His Lordship will have just

seven months as the CJI, which is too less a tenure for the

enormous goals that are to be accomplished, ideally, during one

single tenure. The institution of judiciary is at its crossroads. Till

today the demand for transparency and accountability, namely,

(a) for open selection and appointment of Judges, (b) video-

recording of Court proceedings, (c) a Judicial Ombudsman, (d)

access to justice, (e) mounting arrears, (f) monopolization of

both the Bench and the Bar by a few families and the elite class

of lawyers etc., are unaddressed and the same requires a judicial

statesman as the CJI with a reasonable length of tenure to delve

into these issues. Hon'ble Shri Justice Jasti Chelameswar is held

in high esteem as an upright Judge, competent and erudite as

much as Hon'ble Shri Justice Khehar is, but open to the most

needed transparency, reformation and accountability in the

higher judiciary. Hon'ble Shri Justice Chelameswar, if appointed

as the next CJI, will retire only on 22nd June, 2018. Therefore,

His Lordship will have a far longer tenure than Hon'ble Shri

Justice Khehar. In any sense, if Hon'ble Shri Justice

14

Chelameswar is appointed as the next CJI, even the qualification

of seniority would be met, for, the collegium then headed by

Hon'ble Shri Justice S.H. Kapadia, elevated Hon'ble Shri Justice

Khehar as Judge of the Supreme Court in preference to Hon'ble

Shri Justice Chelameswar, who is senior to Hon'ble Shri Justice

Khehar, for reasons wholly unknown to the rest of the world.

9. The Petitioners had in this regard written to the

Hon’ble President, Prime Minister, CJI and the Law Minister, by

letter dated 4th Of December, 2016 hoping in the alternative that

however, if their suggestion does not find favour with the

authorities that be, and Hon'ble Shri Justice Khehar is appointed

as the CJI, the Petitioners will welcome that decision with an

open mind and with their own hearts and will extend all our

support and co-operation, so that His Lordship could do the very

best in the service of the nation. However, the Petitioners would

be doing a greater harm or disservice to the nation and to the

few thousands whose cause, the Petitioners are championing, if a

Petition as the instant one is not filed. The Petitioners assume

that Hon'ble Shri Justice Khehar will be magnanimous and

graceful if any of their words have in any manner offended His

Lordship.

10. As could be seen from above, if the seniority rule is

mechanically followed, one could, with certainty, predict who

could be the future CJIs at least till 11th November, 2024 and

15

their respective tenure. The Petitioners say that if it were to be

in the form of a chart, it will be as follows:-

LINE OF SUCCESSION AS CJI

Sr. No. Name of the Judge Tenure as CJI ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Justice J. S Khehar 03.01.2017 to 27.08.2017 2. Justice Dipak Misra 27.08.2017 to 02.10.2018

3. Justice Ranjan Gogoi 02.10.2018 to 17.11.2019 4. Justice S.A Bobde 17.11.2019 to 23.04.2021 5. Justice Ramana 23.04.2021 to 26.08.2022 6. Justice U U Lalit 26.08.22 to 08.11.2022 7. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud 08.11.2022 to 10.11.2024

11. The above chart will indicate that except Hon'ble Shri

Justice J.S. Khehar and Hon'ble Shri Justice N.V. Ramana, the

former to occupy the office of the CJI from 3.1.2017 till

27.08.2017, all other future CJIs are either the

son/daughter/nephew of former CJI/High Court Judge/former

Chief Minister/Chief Minister etc., all from the elite and privileged

class. It is also crystal clear from the above chart that the tenure

of the future CJIs is as short as 7 months in the case of Hon'ble

Shri Justice Khehar and a maximum of two years in the case of

Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud. As the Petitioners have

stated at the outset in all humility, the Indian judiciary and the

legal profession is drawn from a small pool of elite class of

lawyers and Judges.

12. There could be no denial of the fact that the legal

profession today is an industry avariciously challenging the

16

constitutional validity of Acts of Parliament and the wisdom of the

Government of the day, challenging in Courts, matters which fall

exclusively within the domain of the executive and the legislature

in so-called PILs without any justiciable issue to impugn, with the

sole motive of burdening and misleading the Supreme Court and

High Courts with jurisdictions and powers, which the framers of

the Constitution never even fathomed, reaping in enormous

profit thereby by way of unquantifiable fees, is the game which

the elite class of lawyers have perfected. Some of the so-called

elite class of lawyers, the Class-I lawyers among the senior

lawyers, who are in the Parliament, demand the Government to

be accountable to the Parliament; at the very same time they

demand the Government to be accountable to the Courts, both at

once. They are the only ones who are considered to be capable

of hairsplitting the laws, invested with all the wisdom in

jurisprudence, to make the common man believe that Courts

could act as executive and legislature, nay, in substitution

thereof, and serve their vested interests, which make them big

lawyers and earn big money. They make the people of this

country to believe that judgments of the Supreme Court, which

are in the realm of mere precedents, are laws of the land. It is

these lawyers, a privileged few, who are cherishing a power

superior than the power of majority guaranteed in the

Constitution of India in the realm of public policy.

13. Stated briefly, the Supreme Court today is more

17

important an institution than the Parliament and the executive

Government, both put together. The judgment in the NJAC case

is a classic example. It meant that views of four Hon'ble Judges

regarding appointment of Judges to the higher judiciary carry

more weight than the wisdom of both the Houses of the

Parliament, which enacted the Constitution (Ninety-ninth

Amendment) Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointment

Commission Act, 2014, and the State Assemblies which ratified

them. Therefore, the august office of the CJI is not a mere office

of the head of the judiciary as it was conceived when the

Constitution of India was promulgated; it has far more

importance. It is certainly not a matter which has concern of the

Judge to be appointed as the next CJI based on seniority, but the

public at large, including the petitioners. Therefore the

Petitioner’s have every locus standi to maintain the instant Writ

Petition for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. Though

the Petitioner’s are no great admirers of the doctrine of basic

structure, as expounded by the full court in Keshavananda

Bharti, since the said decision so too the decisions of the

Supreme Court in a large number of cases including Minarva

Mills, Judges 2 case, the NJAC Case etc, enunciate a proposition

that any citizen acting pro bono, feeling aggrieved by the breach

of the basic structure of the Constitution could invoke Article 32,

the Petitioners beg to assert that appointment of the Chief

Justice of India, purely on the basis of seniority when the

18

foundation of such seniority is a selection in a non transparent

manner, nay, arbitrary manner, such appointment would violate

the very “basic structure” of the Constitution namely the primacy

of the fundamental rights.

14. The concept of legitimate expectancy for appointment

as the next CJI so far as the senior most Judge of the Supreme

Court is concerned is, undoubtedly, of importance, but what is

more important is the stake involved of the people of the

country. At the moment, the public at large have no say

whatsoever in the selection and appointment of their CJI. The

Petitioners, in all humility, beg to submit that such a scenario is

not conceivable in a democracy where the people are sovereign.

Therefore, considerations of public interest in the matter as to

who ought to be their next CJI shall prevail over the legitimate

expectation of the senior most Judge of the Supreme Court to be

appointed as the CJI. Viewed from that perspective, the

paramount consideration in the matter of appointment of the CJI

and in the context of the next CJI is how suitable is the Judge to

be so appointed in terms of the enormous responsibilities that

the incumbent has to discharge and the confidence and trust the

public repose in him.

15. As aforesaid, the Indian judiciary is at crossroads.

The responsibilities to be shouldered by the next CJI are the

expectations which the general public aspire from him,

19

particularly in terms of greater transparency and accountability in

judiciary, which as of today is a cry in the wilderness, for, the

aspirations of the people for a judiciary which is accessible to all,

which is accountable to them, which is free of corruption, which

is transparent, which is efficient, and which indeed delivers

justice. Therefore, the next CJI whom the country demands is

not an ordinary Judge, but a super Judge possessing not mere

knowledge of law and experience but something far beyond that

– one who is willing to sense the aspirations and pulse of the

people, particularly in the realm of greater transparency and

accountability; open selection and appointment of Judges to the

higher judiciary; video-recording of Court proceedings; a

mechanism (Judicial Ombudsman) to address grievances against

Judges, a judicial statesman. Therefore, the search for the next

CJI cannot be confined to the seniormost Puisne Judge, though,

undoubtedly, considerations of legitimate expectancy should

weigh with the Government.

16. The Petitioners have been, for the last few years,

doing whatever possible within their means to secure greater

transparency, reforms and accountability in the higher judiciary.

They have written umpteen letters to the President, Prime

Minister, the Chief Justice of India, the Law Minister and other

high constitutional functionaries, with their grievances and

suggestions. The Petitioners have also met the former CJI and

the present and past Law Ministers, but their pleas remain to be

20

a cry in the wilderness. Though Hon'ble Shri Justice Kurien

Joseph, an Hon'ble Judge possessing all heavenly qualifies, down

to earth, a noble sole soul who comes from humble background

and who could sense the feeling even of the most subliminal,

spoke out his mind in the most outspoken way calling for

improvement like ‘Perestroika’ and ‘Glasnost’ in the matter of

judicial appointments in his minority judgment in the NJAC case,

nothing has happened. In so far as the affairs of the judiciary is

concerned, everything remain to be absolutely opaque. What the

Petitioners and the public hear about is drafting of a

Memorandum of Procedure and that too in absolute secrecy.

Therefore, the Petitioners are left with no other option than to

invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 32 of

the Constitution seeking a mandamus directing the Respondent

to consider the various representations made by the Petitioners,

including their representation dated 4th December, 2016, a copy

of which is produced as Annexure P-1 (From Pages ___

to___) hereto, and consider Hon'ble Shri Justice Jasti

Chelameswar for appointment as the next CJI, for His Lordship

has a tenure of almost two years, if so appointed, on demitting

office by Hon'ble Shri Justice T.S. Thakur. In his judgment in the

NJAC case and also otherwise, Hon'ble Shri Justice Jasti

Chelameswar, even at the cost of displeasing his own brother

Judges, has insisted for a modicum of transparency in the

functioning of the collegium, nay, in judicial appointments.

21

17. The Petitioners accordingly invoked the jurisdiction of

this Hon'ble Court under Article 32 of the Constitution by way of

W.P.(C) D 41674/2016 for a writ of mandamus or any other writ,

order or direction, directing the Respondent Union of India to

consider the various representations made by the Petitioners to

the President, Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India, the Law

Minister and other high constitutional functionaries, including

their representation dated 4th December, 2016 (Annexure P-1

hereto) and consider Hon'ble Shri Justice Jasti Chelameswar for

appointment as the next Chief Justice of India, who will have, if

so appointed, a tenure of almost two years, on demitting office

by Hon'ble Shri Justice T.S. Thakur, and who, even at the cost of

displeasing his own brother Judges, has insisted for a modicum of

transparency in the functioning of the collegium, nay, in judicial

appointments; The said Writ Petition is listed for hearing on 23rd

December, 2016 before the Vacation Court of this Hon'ble Court.

However, in the meanwhile, literally rendering the said Writ

Petition infructuous in so far as the relief sought for therein is

concerned, and not the least the larger issue of appointment of

Judges, His Excellency, the President of India, signed the

Warrant appointing Hon'ble Shri Justice J.S. Khehar as the next

CJI. Respondent No.2 accordingly issued Notification dated

19.12.2016 appointing Hon'ble Shri Justice J.S. Khehar as the

next CJI. A copy of the Notification dated 19.12.2016 is

produced as Annexure P-2(From Pages ___ to___).

22

18. The Union of India chose to appoint Hon'ble Shri

Justice J.S. Khehar, the Petitioners beg to submit with utmost

respect, without taking into account the true tenor and import of

the recommendation dated 06.12.2016 made by the

Parliamentary Committee on Law and Justice. In its

Report/recommendation dated 06.12.2016 the Parliamentary

Committee on Law and Justice was pleased to recommend as

follows:-

“OBSERVATIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE

COMMITTEE

61. After having gone through the Constitutional provisions, the

intent behind them as enshrined in the debates of the

Constituent Assembly, the developments following four Supreme

Court judgments in Judges Casesv and the views expressed by

the legal luminaries and the Bar, the Committee is of the opinion

that appointment of judges of higher judiciary is essentially an

executive function and is envisaged as a participatory

Constitutional function to be jointly performed by the Judiciary

and the Executive. The deliberate use of word “consultation” in

place "concurrence" in the relevant provisions of the Constitution

by the framers of the Constitution strengthens this opinion.

Accordingly, the Committee is of the view that judicial

appointments are shared responsibility of the Executive and the

Judiciary to be exercised jointly with neither organ of the State

23

having a primacy over the other. The Committee, accordingly

recommends that the distortion in the original mandate of the

Constitution arising from the judgments of the Apex Court

in the Second Judges Case and subsequent cases needs to be

reversed and the original Constitutional position needs to be

respected in letter and spirit for which Government may take

appropriate measures.

62. The Committee notes that Constitution 99th Amendment Act

which was unanimously passed by the Lok Sabha and near

unanimously by the Rajya Sabha (with one dissent) was struck

down by a majority of 4:1 by a 5 Judges Bench of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court. The Committee having noted that at the time of

enacting the Constitution, the strength of the judges in the

Supreme Court was only 7 and a Bench with a minimum strength

of 5 Hon’ble Judges was prescribed for deciding any case

involving interpretation of Constitution or a reference under

Article 143 and now the sanctioned strength of judges has gone

up to 31, recommends that a minimum number of 11 Judges of

the Supreme Court should hear cases involving the validity of a

Constitutional amendment. The Committee further recommends

that the cases involving the interpretation of the Constitution

should not be heard by a Bench of less than 7 Judges.

63. The Committee is concerned at the present stand-off over the

finalization of Memorandum of Procedure between the Executive

and the Judiciary which is leading to delay in filling the vacancies

24

in the Constitutional Courts and is adversely affecting

administration of justice. The Committee expects that both the

sides would quickly resolve their differences in the larger public

interest and will not allow the administration of justice to suffer

on this account. The Committee further feels that pending

finalization of supplemental MoP/review of

judgements/Constitutional amendments, appointments of Judges

should continue as per hitherto existing practice as an ad-hoc

measure so that administration of justice does not suffer.

64. The Committee expresses its deep anguish that

recruitment process for the vacancies occurring as early as in the

year 2007 was not initiated by certain High Courts as late as the

year 2016. The Committee understands that several High Courts

wait initiation of the proposal till a bunch of vacancies becomes

available. This practice is not desirable and leads to delay in

filling up the vacancies apart from being violative to the timelines

laid in the Second Judges' Case and existing Memorandum of

Procedure and needs to be discontinued forthwith. The

Committee feels that for each vacancy, the recruitment process

should be initiated well before its occurrence so that by the time

the vacancy occurs, a judge is available to fill that vacancy.

65. The Committee notes that timelines were prescribed in the

Second Judges Case for completion of various stages in the

process of appointment of judges to the Constitutional Courts.

The existing Memorandum of Procedure, however, only provides

25

timelines for filling the vacancies of judges in the High Courts but

not in the Supreme Court. As per the data provided by the

Department of Justice, it has been observed that timelines

are not being observed by both Judiciary and the Government.

The Government on one hand is taking too much time than the

prescribed to process the recommendations, the Judiciary on the

other hand by clubbing vacancies is unduly delaying forwarding

of its recommendations to the Government. The Committee

expresses its deep sense of disappointment and anguish that the

timelines laid in the Second Judges Case and the MoP are not

being adhered to and are violated with impunity which is leading

to extraordinary and unacceptable delay in filling up of the

vacancies. The Committee recommends that an institutional

mechanism should beevolved, so that retirement of a particular

Judge and appointment against the resultant vacancy is

simultaneously completed. Such a mechanism will be in the

interest of the judicial administration and its efficacy. For this to

happen the timelines for completion of various stages of

appointment process in all Constitutional Courts should not only

to be firmly laid in the Memorandum of Procedure but also needs

to be scrupulously adhered to by all Constitutional authorities.

66. The Committee recommends bringing in more transparency

in the appointment process of the judges of the Constitutional

Courts. The Committee feels that the eligibility criteria, the

method of selection, manner of evaluation of merit, criteria of

26

selection, candidates found eligible for consideration, number of

vacancies etc. should be made public. The confidentiality,

however, may be maintained with regard to names finally

short-listed for appointment till the process is completed.

67. The Committee understands that Government on grounds of

‘national security’ and ‘larger public interests proposes to decline

the Supreme Court Collegiums’ recommendations. Moreover, the

Committee has learnt that those parameters are proposed as

part of the revised MoP. The Committee apprehends that the

Government may reject any name duly approved by the Supreme

Court Collegium under the veil of those parameters. This would

tantamount to giving veto power to the Government, which is not

as per mandate of the Constitution. In order to

avoid such a situation, the Committee recommends that the

terms ‘national security’ and ‘larger public interest’ should, in no

ambiguous terms be defined and circumstances/antecedents

which fall within their purview listed.

68. The Committee notes that Hon'ble Judges in Fourth Judges

case have themselves recognised that 'there is no healthy system

of appointments in practice' and that the collegium system lacks

transparency, accountability and objectivity.' The Committee is in

agreement with the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

and believes that absence of these three and unnecessary zeal

for primacy have led us to the present unfortunate situation. At

27

the same time the Committee strongly feels that the Judiciary

should continue to enjoy trust and confidence that people of the

country have in it and its credibility needs to be maintained and

should not be lowered at any cost. The Committee, therefore,

suggests that at least the supplemental Memorandum of

Procedure which is under revision must incorporate these three

essentials.

69. As per present practice, the Collegium of High Courts

generally short-list names of legal practitioners who have argued

before the judges in the Collegium. There is every likelihood that

advocates who have notappeared before judges forming

Collegium may not be shortlisted. The Committee feels that the

zone of consideration of the legal practitioners who are short

listed should be done by wider consultation amongst judges.

The views of all judges in the Court and Bar Association needs to

be obtained within a definite timeframe. All the names so

recommended be placed before the High Court Collegium for

making final recommendations of names to the Supreme Court

Collegium/Union Government.

70. The Committee notes that there is no dedicated mechanism

available for processing the proposals for filling the vacancies of

the Judges in the Constitutional Courts and that contributes to

delay in appointment of the Judges in the Constitutional Courts.

The Committee accordingly recommends that a dedicated Cell in

the Registry of the Constitutional Courts be set up to assist

28

initiation of the proposals in time for filling the various vacancies.

The Cell may be made responsible for collecting/collating

information and maintaining a computerized database of persons

eligible for appointment as Judges to the Constitutional Courts.

It may also be made responsible for obtaining views/comments

of experts on the quality of work of eligible persons as also for

obtaining views/comments from various stakeholders on their

suitability, caliber, reputation, character and antecedents. This

would help in making an intensive scrutiny and ensure greater

objectivity in the selection process. The Cell may also be

responsible for keeping a track of the vacancies and making the

required information available in time for timely processing of

the proposals. The professional and personal particulars

maintained in such database of any person may also be shared

with that person so that he gets an opportunity to make a

representation in case the database does not reflect his

particulars correctly. The Cell while maintaining the database of

candidates eligible for such appointments may particularly ensure

that the eligible persons from women, minorities, etc. are also

included so that the composition of higher judiciary becomes

reflective of the diversity of the society.

71. The Chief Justice of High Court in addition to his judicial

functions also heads the Collegium. Chief Justices of High Courts

also get elevated to the Supreme Court and the vacancy in the

High Court from which he is elevated often remains vacant for a

29

long time. In his absence, the acting Chief Justice does not hold

the meetings of the Collegium, which leads to further delay in the

appointments. Therefore, barring certain sudden exigencies,

there should not be any occasion of having a gap between

vacation of the post of Chief Justice (due to retirement transfer,

elevation or any other reason) and the appointment of his

successor. In case the Chief Justice of High Court is elevated to

the Supreme Court or isransferred, filling up of the vacancy in

the High Court should be simultaneous.

72. At present, the reasons for rejection of a particular candidate

by the Supreme Court Collegium are not disclosed. The

Committee feels that in case a candidate’s name is rejected for

any reason by the Collegium, the candidate must be informed of

the grounds of rejection. The Committee also observes that the

Government also rejects the names recommended by the

Supreme Court Collegium without furnishing cogent reasons

therefore. Such practices are against the principles of natural

justice and leads to opaqueness in the appointment process.

Therefore, the Committee feels that Glasnost in process of

appointment of Judges is the need of hour.

73. The Committee notes that there is no mention of the

procedure and method for appointment of High Court Judges

from the subordinate judiciary in the existing MoP from where

one-thirds appointments are made. The Committee, therefore,

recommends that MoP must also contain eligibility criteria and

30

procedure for their appointments.

74. In order to tackle mounting burden of cases at the High Court

level Article 224 A may be invoked to allow chief justices of High

Courts to appoint retired judicial officers as ad hoc judges. This

will not just help in reduction of pending cases but also reduce

the burden of the judiciary. Further, an elaborate procedure akin

to procedure for new appointments is laid for appointment of Ad

hoc Judges in the Supreme Court and retired

Judges in the High Court in the MoP. The Committee feels that

such appointments should not be considered de novo, as all

requisites relating to their antecedents has been done prior to

their appointments. There is no merit in repeating the same,

except making quick performance appraisal before such

appointments. This will help in appointment of such Judges in

the minimum possible time, when so required. Further, they

must be given the same status what they were enjoying prior to

their retirement in order to make the position more acceptable to

them. But such appointment of ad-hoc judges should be in

addition to the sanctioned strength.

75. The Ministry has informed that it does not maintain data of

judges belonging to SCs/STs/OBCs and Minorities as the

Constitution does not provide representation on the basis of

caste or class of persons. The Committee also notes that women

representation in higher judiciary for which data has been

provided, is not encouraging as so far only six women judges

31

have been elevated to the Bench of Supreme Court of India since

1950, with Justice M. Fathima Beevi as the first female judge

elevated in1989. As on 1st November, 2016, there are 64 women

as compared to 397 male judges in 24 High Courts, including

High Courts of Delhi and Bombay which are headed by women

Chief Justice. In Supreme Court there is only one woman judge,

out of twenty-five

47

8

. High Courts of

Chhattishgrh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir,

Jharkhand,Manipur, Meghalaya, Tripura and Uttrakhand have no

woman judges. There is no female office bearers in Bar Council of

India. There are only 12 senior female advocates in Supreme

Court Bar. It is noted that some of the National Law Schools have

given reservation to girls in their law programmes, which is

encouraging. The Committee desires that the Bench of Higher

Judiciary to be reflective of composition of society and its

diversity and recommends that suitable measures to achieve that

may be taken.

76. The age of Supreme Court judge was fixed at 65 years by the

Constituent Assembly which has not been revised till now.

However, retirement age of High Court judges was increased to

62 from 60 by the Fifteenth Amendment (1963) of the

Constitution when the life expectancy was 60 years. With

32

improvements in social and financial conditions as well as in

medical facilities, the life expectancy has since increased

considerably. The retirement age in some Tribunals is now 70 for

Chairmen and 65 for Members. The retired judges of Supreme

Court and High Courts are appointed as Chairmen and Members

of various Commissions/Tribunals where they are discharging

their role and duties including adjudication quite efficiently.

Moreover, it is now the global practice of engaging persons with

enriched professional experience which is attained with

protracted exposure in the profession. The retirement age of

judges of Superior Courts in countries such as USA, UK,

Switzerland, South Africa, Denmark, Phillipines is 70 years while

in some countries such as, Australia, Canada, Argentina, Brazil,

etc. judges of Superior Courts retire at 75 years. The Committee,

accordingly, recommends increase of retirement age of Supreme

Court judge to 67 years and of High Court judge to 65 years.

77. The Committee observes that in last twenty years (since

1997), seventeen Chief Justices of Supreme Court have been

appointed and out of those, only three had tenure of more than

two years. Many of them had tenure of even less than one year.

Similarly, Chief Justice of High Courts in most cases get

appointed for less than two years term. Some of the Chief

Justices also get elevated to the Bench of Supreme Court further

shortening their tenure in High Courts. In many cases, the post

33

of Chief Justice are not filled-up simultaneously and acting Chief

Justice, appointed as a stop gap arrangement, does not often

take decision about names to be recommended to the Union

Government/Supreme Court Collegium forfilling-up of vacancies

in that High Court. In eventuality, the High Court Collegium

becomes dysfunctional, which causes delay in judicial

appointment. The Committee feels that ensuring a minimum

tenure may resolve this issue once for all and recommends that

the Department of Justice should consider ways so that a Chief

Justice in the High Courts and in the Supreme Court remains in

position for a certain minimum tenure.”

A copy of the Report/recommendation dated 06.12.2016 of the

Parliamentary Committee on Law and Justice is produced as

Annexure-P3 (From Pages ___ to___).

19. The Petitioners hold, to repeat, Hon'ble Shri Justice

J.S. Khehar in the highest of esteem, respect and regard.

However, the Petitioners consider that Hon'ble Shri Justice J.S.

Khehar is disqualified from being appointed as the 44th CJI and

the entire proceedings commencing from the recommendation of

His Lordship’s name for appointment as the next CJI by the

outgoing CJI leading to the issuance of the Warrant of

Appointment by the President of India, as aforesaid, are rendered

void ab initio inasmuch as, with utmost respect the Petitioners

beg to submit, had the Constitution Bench which heard the NJAC

34

case presided over by Hon'ble Shri Justice J.S. Khehar not

declared the aforesaid Acts as unconstitutional, had the NJAC

was allowed to come into existence, had a Commission consisting

of the outgoing CJI, Hon'ble Shri Justice Chelameswar, Hon'ble

Shri Justice Dipak Misra and two eminent persons, which the

Committee consisting of the Hon'ble Prime Minister, the CJI, the

Leader of the Opposition/the largest party in the Opposition and

the Law Minister was allowed to come into existence and had

occasion to consider who ought to be the 44th CJI upon

retirement of CJI Shri T.S. Thakur on 3rd January, 2017, the said

Commission would have well appointed Hon'ble Shri Justice J.S.

Khehar himself taking into account His Lordship’s seniority or

could have appointed Hon'ble Shri Justice Chelameswar

considering His Lordship’s seniority as a High Court Judge over

Hon'ble Shri Justice Khehar. The said Commission would have,

taking into consideration matters which have far greater import

than seniority and legitimate expectation of the seniormost Judge

to become the CJI, like, to give leadership of the Indian judiciary

to a judicious statesman at a time when it is at its crossroads as

of today where the aspirations of the common man for a judiciary

which is fully transparent in its functioning, particularly in the

matter of appointment of Judges and its accountability, for, as of

today, there is no proper mechanism in existence for redressal of

complaints against Judges, so on and so forth, and the need to

have a longer tenure for the CJI, whomsoever he may be.

35

20. The Petitioners reassert that they have the greatest

respect for Hon'ble Shri Justice J.S. Khehar and they in no way

cast any aspersion on His Lordship’s competence or integrity as a

Judge. All that the Petitioners beg to submit is that even the

most erudite, noble, conscientious, impartial and impartial Judge

may not entirely fit in the big shoes of the next CJI considering

the great challenges which the Indian judiciary faces today. The

need of the hour is a great judicious statesman, a CJI who is

willing to usher in and give leadership for the much needed

judicial reforms, particularly in the realm of appointment of

Judges to the higher judiciary, openness to the idea of video-

recording of Court proceedings, willingness to allow the judiciary

to be criticized wherever it has gone wrong, like any other organ

of the State, like the executive and the legislature, feel for the

need to bring an end to the apartheid as it exists in the legal

profession where the elite class of lawyers, a few families. enjoy

predominance over the Bar and the Bench, willingness to remove

the element of absolute discretion which the jurisdictions under

Articles 32, 136 and 226 of the Constitution suffer from as of

date, bring in rules and regulations which will end the menace of

“face value” with which jurisdictions under the aforesaid Articles

are vitiated as of today etc.

21. The Parliamentary Committee on Law and Justice, as

aforesaid, spoke eloquently, nay, in unmistakable terms, about

36

the need to bring into existence a mechanism for appointment of

Judges to the higher judiciary where neither the executive nor

the judiciary has a predominant say. The Parliamentary

Committee on Law and Justice has spoken of, in other words, the

need to appoint Judges to the higher judiciary by a mechanism

which is independent of the executive and the judiciary, namely,

in the eyes of the Petitioners, a truly Independent Judicial

Appointment Commission. If the words NJAC were an anathema,

it could be interred with bones; if the presence of the Law

Minister in the NJAC was an anathema, that too could be buried.

Like if the presence of the Law Minister in the NJAC be an

anathema, the presence of so many senior Judges in the NJAC is

also an anathema for the simple reason that since 1993 when the

Judges assumed to themselves the power of appointing

themselves, rather than men and women of merit and character

from a large pool consisting of sons and daughters of the

common man, the collegium has chosen to appoint from a small

pool consisting of the kith and kin, nephews and juniors of sitting

and former Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, so too

of celebrated lawyers, Chief Ministers, Governors et al, and a few

first generation lawyers who are all politically connected or are

close to big industrial houses. The report/recommendation

(Annexure P-3) is the voice of the people, for, the Parliamentary

Committee on Law and Justice consists of not merely members of

the ruling party, but from the entire political spectra. The very

37

Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Law and Justice,

the 4th Respondent, is from the Congress Party.

22. The Petitioners, even in the wildest of their dreams,

cannot claim any right to assert that appointment of Judges to

the higher judiciary should be in a particular manner. There

could be more than one way of achieving the object. The

Parliamentary Committee on Law and Justice has in unmistakable

terms suggested the need for reforms in the appointment of

Judges to the higher judiciary. One of the ways by which the

philosophy of judicial appointments of men and women of

character and integrity, independent of both the executive and

the judiciary, is to bring back into existence the NJAC which was

declared to be unconstitutional by the lead judgment dated 16th

October, 2015 of the Supreme Court authored by Hon'ble Shri

Justice Khehar in the now popularly known as the NJAC case.

There could be more than one way to secure that objective. In

so far as third parties like the Petitioners who were not parties to

the said case and were never heard, it may be a Writ Petition

under Article 32 of the Constitution and in so far as the Union of

India, it being a party to the said case and was heard, an

application for review of the said judgment in terms of Article

145 of the Constitution read with Rule __ of the Supreme Court

Rules would be ideal. The Petitioners consider that an application

for review at the hands of the Union of India, unlike the

procedure at their hands, will have great impact. After all, the

38

executive Government represents “we, the people”. Petitioners

Nos.2 to 12, the campaigners in their individual capacity, and

Shri Mathews J. Nedumpara, President of the 1st Petitioner, have

made repeated representations to the Government of India to

seek a review of the judgment in the NJAC case. However, the

Government has not yet acted upon them. The Petitioners,

therefore, believe that they are within their right to seek a

mandamus at the hands of this Hon'ble Court directing the Union

Government to consider their plea/representation (Annexure P-3)

to seek a review of the judgment in the NJAC case. Hence, the

instant Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution on the

following, amongst other, grounds:

G R O U N D S

(A) The Chief Justice of India is the pater familias of the

judicial fraternity. The judiciary in reality, distinct from

the constitutional principle, today being the most

powerful wing of the State, literally enjoying

predominance over the executive and the legislature, is

not merely an instrument to act as checks and balances

that the executive and the legislature function within the

provinces which the Constitution has earmarked for

them, the appointment of the CJI has, it is not an

exaggeration to say, greater importance than even the

Prime Minister. Today it is not a myth to perceive that

Judges declare the law of the land; it is real. It is not a

39

myth to say that the judiciary involves itself in policy

matters; it does. This being the primordial role played

by the judiciary in reality today, which is certainly at

great variance with the constitutional scheme of checks

and balances and separation of powers, what we expect

in the CJI is not a mere eminent person or a mere jurist

or a great Judge, but even beyond that, namely, a

judicial statesman, nay, a statesman. Therefore, the

seniority of a Judge, though sacrosanct otherwise, has

little relevance. The only question which is relevant is

who would be able to fit into the big shoe, the enormous

responsibility which the CJI as head of the judiciary, the

most “powerful Court of the world”, is required to be

possessed of. Considering the need to keep the

judiciary within its legitimate province, the need of the

judiciary to resist its temptation to enter into the

provinces of the executive and the legislature, keeping

the aspirations and dreams of 1/6th of the humanity, for

a judiciary which is transparent and accountable to

them, the philosophy of the person to be appointed as

the CJI matters; it matters the most. Hon'ble Shri

Justice Chelameswar having spoken in unmistakable and

candid terms, even to the chagrin of his Brother Judges,

about the need to respect the will of the people,

particularly in matters of legislative policy and having

40

stood for and continues to stand for, probably in a

measure far greater than any other Judge, the

aspirations of the people and for a judiciary which is

transparent and accountable to the people, in the

humble view of the Petitioners, is worthy to be

considered and appointed as the next CJI.

(B) It is not out of place to mention that when Shri Justice

Krishna Iyer adorned the august office of the Judge of

the Supreme Court, then too there was a demand that

His Lordship be appointed as the CJI. It is also not out

of place to say that Justice Krishna Iyer was elevated as

a Judge of the Supreme Court bypassing the concept of

seniority. Therefore, even those who probably could be

most uncomfortable, nay, oppose the appointment of

Hon'ble Shri Justice Chelameswar as the next CJI tooth

and nail, decades down, will regret their stand. It is in

the public domain that the eminent jurist Shri Soli

Sorabjee opposed Justice Krishna Iyer’s appointment

because of His Lordship’s Communist leaning and his

past as an active politician. But Shri Sorabjee was

humble and candid enough to come in the open and

confess that he was wrong. Those who could be

opposing the appointment of Hon'ble Shri Justice

Chelameswar as the CJI today could be the Sorabjees of

tomorrow.

41

(C) Hon'ble Shri Justice Khehar is a tall Judge, a person of

undoubted integrity, honesty and uprightness; nobody

could question that His Lordship is a diamond in that

sense. But if His Lordship is appointed as the next CJI in

deference to the recommendation of the outgoing CJI,

tomorrow it may put His Lordship in an uncomfortable

position. It cannot be denied that even today many

lawyers say that Hon'ble Shri Justice Khehar failed to

foresee the inevitable fallout of His Lordship presiding

over the Constitution Bench in the NJAC case and

quashing the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment)

Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointment

Commission Act, 2014 as unconstitutional. Had the said

Acts not been declared as unconstitutional and had the

NJAC become a reality, then when Hon'ble Shri Justice

Thakur retires as CJI on 3rd January, 2017, who should

be appointed as the next CJI would have been decided

by the NJAC of which Hon'ble Shri Justice Thakur could

be the Chairman. The other members of the NJAC

would have been Hon'ble Shri Justice Khehar, Hon'ble

Shri Justice Dipak Misra, the Law Minister and two

eminent persons to be selected by a Committee

consisting of the Prime Minister, the CJI and the Leader

of the Opposition. Assuming that the two eminent

persons were to oppose the appointment of Hon'ble Shri

42

Justice Khehar as the next CJI, then His Lordship would

not have been so appointed at all. In other words, while

deciding the NJAC case, Hon'ble Shri Justice Khehar

certainly was deciding a case where His Lordship’s own

appointment as the CJI was involved – a case of

manifest conflict of interest. The President of the 1st

Petitioner, who had instituted a Writ Petition seeking a

declaration that the aforesaid Acts are constitutional and

that the judgments in Judges-2 and Judges-3 cases

were rendered per incuriam, had brought to the notice

of the Hon'ble Constitution Bench the embarrassment

which Hon'ble Shri Justice Khehar may in future face,

and sought His Lordship’s recusal from hearing the case,

but it was in vain.

(D) The blind obeisance to the seniority rule and the

doctrine of legitimate expectation in so far as the

appointment of the CJI is fraught with many dangers. It

cannot be denied that the collegium system of Judges

appointing themselves has meant the higher judiciary

being monopolized by the kith and kin, nephews and

juniors of sitting and former Judges of the Supreme

Court and High Courts, so too of celebrated lawyers,

Chief Ministers, Governors et al, and a few first

generation lawyers who are all politically connected or

are close to big industrial houses, who are appointed as

43

Judges of High Courts at the very young age of 40 years

or a little later. This, as the Chart in paragraph 10

above would indicate, has meant all future Chief

Justices, except Hon'ble S/Shri Justices Khehar and

Ramana, being from the small pool of the elite class of

lawyers mentioned above. There is a general perception

that all future Chief Justices of the High Courts could

claim seniority over other Judges who are equally, if not

more competent and deserving, because they had their

Godfathers to get them anointed as a Judge of a High

Court at an early stage, at the turnout of 40 years or so.

The necessary corollary thereof is that the seniority rule

cannot be given the sanctity which could be attributed to

the serving Judges whose selection and appointment is

based on competitive examination and solely on merit.

(E) Even if the seniority rule and the doctrine of legitimate

expectation are to be taken as sacrosanct, as Holy Bible,

then also Hon'ble Shri Justice Chelameswar being

appointed as a Judge of the High Court of Andhra

Pradesh on 23rd June, 1997 is senior to Hon'ble Shri

Justice Khehar who was appointed as a Judge of the

Punjab and Haryana High Court on 8th February, 1999.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Chelameswar became junior to

Hon'ble Shri Justice Khehar as a Judge of the Supreme

Court because Hon'ble Shri Justice Khehar was elevated

44

to the Supreme Court ignoring the seniority of Hon'ble

Shri Justice Chelameswar.

23. The instant Writ is not barred by the doctrine of

estoppel res judicata. The Petitioners have not filed any other

Petition before this Hon’ble Court or any other Court seeking

similar reliefs as are sought in this Petition, except Writ Petition C

(D) No. 41674 of 2016 mentioned in paragraph 17 hereinabove.

24. The Petitioners state that requisite Court-fee of

Rs.250/- as per Rules has been paid.

25. The Petitioners state that there is no delay or laches in

preferring this Petition and hence the same is within limitation.

26. The Petitioners state that they have no other

efficacious alternative remedy than to prefer the instant Writ

Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

27. The Petitioners crave leave to add, amend or alter any

of the foregoing grounds with the permission of this Hon’ble

Court.

P R A Y E R S

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

a) declare that Respondent No.1 Hon'ble Shri Justice J.S.

Khehar, Chief Justice of India-designate, is disqualified

45

from being appointed as the next Chief Justice of India

since the lead judgment dated 16th October, 2015

authored by His Lordship in the now popularly known

as the NJAC Case is one rendered void ab initio

because the said judgment is in violation of the first

principle of natural justice, namely, nemo iudex in sua

causa or nemo debet esse judex in propria causa and

audi alteram partem inasmuch as the said judgment,

by which the National Judicial Appointment

Commission was aborted, meant nothing but a

certiorarified mandamus at the hands of the

Constitution Bench in the said case presided over by

His Lordship Hon'ble Shri Justice J.S. Khehar to

appoint himself as the next Chief Justice of India,

ruling out, may be, the distant possibility of the NJAC

which would consist of two eminent persons

appointing Hon'ble Shri Justice Jasti Chelameswar or

any other tall Judge as the next Chief Justice of India,

even while considering Hon'ble Shri Justice Khehar as

eminent in all respects, but the function to be

discharged by the Chief Justice of India is different

which only a great judicious statesman, eminent in all

respects, noble, erudite, impartial, independent and

amenable to the aspirations of the people of the

country in the realm of transparency and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemo_iudex_in_sua_causa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemo_iudex_in_sua_causa

46

accountability in the higher judiciary can exercise;

b) declare that the lead judgment in the NJAC case is

void in as much as the said judgment has invested in

Respondent No.1, Hon'ble Shri Justice J.S. Khehar,

Chief Justice of India-designate, power to appoint as

many as seven Puisne Judges of the Supreme Court

on the recommendation of the collegium, of which His

Lordship is the Chairman/head, while had the

Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and

the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act,

2014 not been struck down as unconstitutional by the

said judgment, His Lordship would not have been

invested with such power which His Lordship is going

to be invested with if His Lordship were to be

appointed as the next Chief Justice of India but was

required to share such powers with the other

members of the National Judicial Appointment

Commission consisting of even two lay people titled as

eminent persons representing the civil society;

c) without prejudice to relief (a) above, for, in the light

of the said relief, a declaratory one, no other relief is

required to be sought for, yet, as a matter of

abundant caution, to issue a writ in the nature of quo

warranto or any other appropriate writ, order or

declaration or direction, declaring that Respondent

47

No.1, Hon'ble Shri Justice J.S. Khehar, Chief Justice of

India-designate, is disqualified from being appointed

as the 44th Chief Justice of India for reasons of conflict

of interest by virtue of the lead judgment dated 16th

October, 2015 authored by His Lordship in the now

popularly known as the NJAC Case;

d) issue a writ in the nature of injunction or prohibition

or any other writ or order or direction, restraining and

prohibiting the Union of India from administering oath

of office to Respondent No.1, Hon'ble Shri Justice J.S.

Khehar, Chief Justice of India-designate, as the next

Chief Justice of India;

e) issue a writ in the nature or mandamus or any other

appropriate writ or order or direction directing the

Union of India to seek a review of the lead judgment

dated 16th October, 2015 authored by His Lordship

Hon'ble Shri Justice J.S. Khehar in the now popularly

known as the NJAC Case by a Constitution Bench

headed by Hon'ble Shri Justice Khehar as the said

judgment is one rendered void ab initio;

f) declare that the lead judgment dated 16th October,

2015 authored by His Lordship Hon'ble Shri Justice

J.S. Khehar in the now popularly known as the NJAC

Case is void ab initio, for, the Public Interest

48

Litigations challenging the Constitution (Ninety-ninth

Amendment) Act, 2014 and the National Judicial

Appointment Commission Act, 2014 were not

maintainable inasmuch as the said enactments were in

the realm of legislative policies not involving violation

of anybody’s fundamental rights;

g) declare that the lead judgment dated 16th October,

2015 authored by His Lordship Hon'ble Shri Justice

J.S. Khehar in the now popularly known as the NJAC

Case is one rendered void ab initio inasmuch as it

does not involve violation of anybody’s fundamental

rights and even if it were to be assumed otherwise,

then also the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment)

Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointment

Commission Act, 2014, the constitutionality of which

was challenged in the said case, were in the realm of

policy matters of the legislature and were not

justiciable inasmuch as if matters of policy are

deemed to be justiciable even on the premise of

violation of fundamental rights, which was not pleaded

or considered, that would mean an obligation to issue

notice to the entire citizens and hearing them, a

proposition which is inconceivable, and thereby

manifest that the NJAC case was not justiciable;

49

h) declare that the concept of basic structure evolved by

the Supreme Court in its judgment in Kesavananda

Bharati v. the State of Kerala (1973) Supp. SCR 1, a

concept which is so sacrosanct, to criticize it is nothing

but blasphemy, is a concept which has no foundation

in jurisprudence and the said judgment requires

reconsideration, for, the judgment in the NJAC Case

itself is a fallout of the former judgment, which the

Constitution Bench in Kesavananda Bharati v. the

State of Kerala (1973) Supp. SCR 1, would have never

thought of;

i) pass such other order or orders, as this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit and proper under the facts and

circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONERSSHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY.

FILED BY Drawn by: ROHINI M AMIN Party- in Person Advocate ROHINI M AMIN

Drawn on: __.12/2016 Filed on: __.12/2016

50



WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.__________ OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF



AFFIDAVIT

I, Rohini M.Amin, Advocate, Adult,Indian, residing at:

B/705, Nirman Apts., R.J Marg, Vikas Nagar, Pump House,

Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400 093 ,Presently at New Delhi, do

hereby solemnly swear and affirm as follows:-

1. That I am the authorized representative of the 1stPetitioner in

the above Writ Petition. I am fully conversant with the facts

and circumstances of the case and hence, I am competent to

swear this affidavit.

2. I state that I have read and understood the contents of the

accompanying writ petition paragraph 1 to __ at page 1 to

__ and the Synopsis & List of dates at page B to __ and state

that the contents therein are true and correct to my knowledge

and belief.

3. I state that I have read and understood the contents of the

I.As. and I state that the contents therein are true and correct

to my knowledge.

51

4. I state that the Annexure along with the Writ Petition produced

herewith are the true copies of their respective originals.

Place: Delhi

DEPONENT

Verification

I, the Deponent above named, do hereby verify and

state that the contents of the Affidavit are true and correct to my

knowledge and belief. No part of it is false and nothing has been

concealed there from.

Verified at New Delhi on this the 23rd day of December, 2016.

Place: Delhi

DEPONENT

52

APPENDIX

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.-

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate

proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this

Part is guaranteed.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or

orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus,

mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,

whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of

the rights conferred by this Part.

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme

Court by clause (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower

any other court to exercise within the local limits of its

jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the

Supreme Court under clause (2).

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended

except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution. “

………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………….

“124. Establishment and constitution of Supreme Court.

(1) There shall be a Supreme Court of India

consisting of a Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament

by law prescribes a larger number, of not more than

seven

53

other Judges.

(2) Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be 2

appointed by the President by warrant under his hand

and seal after consultation with such of the Judges of the

Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the States as the President may deem necessary for the purpose and

shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-five

years:

Provided that in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of India shall

always be consulted:

Provided further that—

(a) a Judge may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office;

(b) a Judge may be removed from his office in the

manner provided in clause (4). [(2A) The age of a Judge of the Supreme Court shall

be determined by such authority and in such manner as

Parliament may by law provide.]

1 (3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as

a Judge of the Supreme Court unless he is a citizen of

India and—

(a) has been for at least five years a Judge of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in

succession; or

(b) has been for at least ten years an advocate of

a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession; or

(c) is, in the opinion of the President, a

distinguished jurist.

Explanation I.—In this clause "High Court'' means a High Court which exercises, or which at any time before

the commencement of this Constitution exercised,

jurisdiction in any part of the territory of India. Explanation II.—In computing for the purpose of this

clause the period during which a person has been an

advocate, any period during which a person has held

judicial office not inferior to that of a district judge after he became an advocate shall be included.

(4) A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed

from his office except by an order of the President

passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of

that House and by a majority of not less than twothirds

of the members of that House present and voting has been

presented to the President in the same

54

session for such removal on the ground of proved

misbehaviour or incapacity. (5) Parliament may by law regulate the procedure for

the presentation of an address and for the investigation

and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge

under clause (4). (6) Every person appointed to be a Judge of the

Supreme Court shall, before he enters upon his office,

make and subscribe before the President, or some person

appointed in that behalf by him, an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third

Schedule.

(7) No person who has held office as a Judge of the

Supreme Court shall plead or act in any court or before any authority within the territory of India. .”

55

To

The Registrar

Supreme Court of India

New Delhi.

Subject : Writ Petition (Civil) No. of 2016



Sir,

I, do hereby, authorize Adv. Anjan Sinha,Adv.A.C. Philip and

Adv. Anil Nishani to file and also to do all needful in the

Registry on my behalf in the above mentioned case.

Date:23-12-2016 (Rohini M.Amin)

Petitioner

56


CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION

I.A.No. OF 2016

IN

Writ Petition. (CIVIL)No. OF 2016

Between



APPLCTION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE THE CASE IN-PERSON

TO, THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE


THE HUMBLE PETITION OF PETITIONER ABOVENAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

1. The petitioner above named Petitioner have filed the

accompanying Writ Petition challenging the

appointment of Hon'ble Shri Justice J.S. Khehar as the

next Chief Justice of India.

2. It is submitted that the Petitioners are desirous of

prosecuting / arguing the case in-person, as no

Advocate -on-Record are willing to sign the petition

since they might embarass the Hon’ble Judges of the

Supreme Court. Since the Petitioners are fully familiar

with facts and circumstances of the case, they are

57

seeking permission of this Hon’ble Court the present

Writ Petition-in-person. Hence, it is most respectfully

prayed that the Petitioners be permitted to

prosecute/argue their case in-person. The petitioner is

not willing to accept any advocate if so provided by the

this Hon’ble Court.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may graciously be pleased to:

a) Permit the Petitioner to argue/appear the present writ

Petition in-person; and

b) Pass such other order or orders as the circumstances of

the case may require.

FILED BY

( Rohini M.Amin)

Petitioner-in-person New Delhi.

Filed on:23-12-2016

58


CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION

I.A.No. OF 2016

IN

Writ Petition. (CIVIL)No. OF 2016

Between



APPLCTION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE THE CASE BY COUNSEL MR.MATHEWS J.NEDUMPARA ON

BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

TO,

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE


THE HUMBLE PETITION OF PETITIONER ABOVENAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

1. The petitioner above named Petitioner have filed the

accompanying Writ Petition challenging the appointment

of Hon'ble Shri Justice J.S. Khehar as the next Chief

Justice of India.

1. It is submitted that the Petitioners are desirous of

filing/prosecuting the case in-person, as no Advocate -

on-Record are willing to sign the petition since they

under the anxiety that they might embaress the

Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court. Since the

Petitioners are fully familiar with facts and

59

circumstances of the case, they are seeking permission

of this Hon’ble Court to file the Writ Petition-in-person.

Furhter the petitioners are desirous of appointing

Mr.Mathews J.Nedumpara, Adv. as the counsel for

arguing and appearing for the said petition before the

Hon’ble Court. Hence, it is most respectfully prayed

that the Petitioners be permitted to file their case in-

person and appoint Mr.Mathews J.Nedumpara as their

arguing counsel. The petitioner is not willing to accept

any advocate if so provided by the this Hon’ble Court for

arguing/presenting.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may graciously be pleased to:

c) Permit the Petitioner to file the present writ Petition in-

person and further allow the petitioners to appoint

Mr.Mathews J. Nedumpara as arguing counsel to

argue/appear in the above Writ Petition(C);

d) Pass such other order or orders as the circumstances of

the case may require.

FILED BY

( Rohini M.Amin)

Petitioner-in-person

New Delhi. Filed on:23-12-2016

Date post:	30-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Nedumparanedumpara.com/pdf/DOC-20161224-WA0023.pdf2016/12/24 ·...

Documents