In New Delhi, the Supreme Court refrained from entertaining a petition advocating for the abolishment of the collegium system utilized for appointing judges within the higher echelons of the judiciary.
Advocate Mathews Nedumpara brought forth his plea before a triumvirate of judges headed by Chief Justice of India, D Y Chandrachud. The legal representative expressed dismay at the absence of his writ petition aimed at eliminating the collegium system from the list of cases for adjudication, remarking, “I have reiterated it on numerous occasions. Yet, the court registry has persistently rebuffed my efforts, refusing to schedule my petition.”
The panel, also consisting of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, relayed that the registrar responsible for case listing had cited precedent, asserting that once a constitutional bench has rendered a verdict on an issue, subsequent petitions under Article 32 become non-tenable. Chief Justice Chandrachud pointed out the availability of alternative legal recourse against the registrar’s directive.
The advocate vehemently contended that the review petition challenging the judgment on the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was summarily dismissed behind closed doors. However, the bench declined to engage with his argument, prompting the lawyer to assert the imperative of institutional integrity and advocate for the abolition of the collegium system.
On October 17, 2015, a quintet of judges on the constitution bench declared the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act and the 99th Constitutional Amendment, which aimed to vest politicians and civil society with ultimate authority in judicial appointments to higher courts, as unconstitutional and nullified them.