SC refuses to entertain plea of authorized professionals’ physique for movement in direction of VP, Rijiju over judiciary remarks

By PTI

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea troublesome the Bombay High Court order which had dismissed a petition in direction of Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar and Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju over their remarks on the judiciary and the collegium system for appointment of judges.

The plea obtained right here up for listening to sooner than a bench of Justices S Ok Kaul and A Amanullah.

“What is this? You are for the petitioner? Why have you come here? Just to complete a circle of coming to the higher court?” the bench observed.

“We believe that the high court view is correct. If any authority has made an inappropriate statement, the observations that the Supreme Court is broad enough to deal with the same is the correct view,” the bench talked about.

The Bombay Lawyers Association (BLA) had approached the apex court docket docket troublesome the extreme court docket docket’s February 9 order dismissing its plea on grounds that it was not a match case to invoke the writ jurisdiction beneath Article 226 of the Constitution.

The BLA had claimed that Rijiju and Dhankhar confirmed a shortage of faith inside the Constitution with their remarks and conduct.

It had sought orders to restrain Dhankhar from discharging duty as a result of the vice chairman, and Rijiju as a result of the cabinet minister for the central authorities.

In an attraction, the authorized professionals’ physique had talked about the “frontal attack not just on the judiciary but the Constitution” by the two govt officers has lowered the standing of the Supreme Court in public.

Rijiju had talked about the collegium system of appointing judges was “opaque and not transparent”.

Vice President Dhankhar had questioned the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgement that gave the important development doctrine.

Dhankhar had talked about the choice set a foul precedent and, if any authority questions Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, it may very well be troublesome to say “We are a democratic nation”.

“It is submitted that the petitioner herein filed the PIL before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay praying therein to declare the respondent no 1 and 2 as disqualified candidates to hold any constitutional posts of Vice President and Minister of the Union Cabinet, respectively, based on their behaviour, conduct and utterances made in public,” the petition had talked about.

The two constitutional functionaries, it had submitted, confirmed a “lack of faith” inside the Constitution by their conduct and utterances made in public and by attacking its institutions, along with the Supreme Court, and displaying scant regard for the laws laid down by the Supreme Court.

“The conduct of respondents Nos 1 and 2 appeared to have shaken public faith in the Supreme Court and the Constitution,” it had submitted.

The plea had talked about the vice chairman and the Union minister have affirmed oaths that they will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution.

“However, their conduct has shown ‘lack of faith’ in the Constitution of India,” it had talked about assailing the extreme court docket docket’s order dismissing its PIL.

The BLA had quoted the statements of the dignitaries made at certain options.

The extreme court docket docket had on February 9 dismissed most people curiosity litigation (PIL) saying, “We are not inclined to grant any relief. The petition is dismissed. Reasons would be recorded later.”

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea troublesome the Bombay High Court order which had dismissed a petition in direction of Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar and Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju over their remarks on the judiciary and the collegium system for appointment of judges.

The plea obtained right here up for listening to sooner than a bench of Justices S Ok Kaul and A Amanullah.

“What is this? You are for the petitioner? Why have you come here? Just to complete a circle of coming to the higher court?” the bench observed.googletag.cmd.push(carry out() googletag.present(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2′); );

“We believe that the high court view is correct. If any authority has made an inappropriate statement, the observations that the Supreme Court is broad enough to deal with the same is the correct view,” the bench talked about.

The Bombay Lawyers Association (BLA) had approached the apex court docket docket troublesome the extreme court docket docket’s February 9 order dismissing its plea on grounds that it was not a match case to invoke the writ jurisdiction beneath Article 226 of the Constitution.

The BLA had claimed that Rijiju and Dhankhar confirmed a shortage of faith inside the Constitution with their remarks and conduct.

It had sought orders to restrain Dhankhar from discharging duty as a result of the vice chairman, and Rijiju as a result of the cabinet minister for the central authorities.

In an attraction, the authorized professionals’ physique had talked about the “frontal attack not just on the judiciary but the Constitution” by the two govt officers has lowered the standing of the Supreme Court in public.

Rijiju had talked about the collegium system of appointing judges was “opaque and not transparent”.

Vice President Dhankhar had questioned the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgement that gave the important development doctrine.

Dhankhar had talked about the choice set a foul precedent and, if any authority questions Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, it may very well be troublesome to say “We are a democratic nation”.

“It is submitted that the petitioner herein filed the PIL before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay praying therein to declare the respondent no 1 and 2 as disqualified candidates to hold any constitutional posts of Vice President and Minister of the Union Cabinet, respectively, based on their behaviour, conduct and utterances made in public,” the petition had talked about.

The two constitutional functionaries, it had submitted, confirmed a “lack of faith” inside the Constitution by their conduct and utterances made in public and by attacking its institutions, along with the Supreme Court, and displaying scant regard for the laws laid down by the Supreme Court.

“The conduct of respondents Nos 1 and 2 appeared to have shaken public faith in the Supreme Court and the Constitution,” it had submitted.

The plea had talked about the vice chairman and the Union minister have affirmed oaths that they will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution.

“However, their conduct has shown ‘lack of faith’ in the Constitution of India,” it had talked about assailing the extreme court docket docket’s order dismissing its PIL.

The BLA had quoted the statements of the dignitaries made at certain options.

The extreme court docket docket had on February 9 dismissed most people curiosity litigation (PIL) saying, “We are not inclined to grant any relief. The petition is dismissed. Reasons would be recorded later.”