Order dated 25-8-2014
(Before Anil R. Dave, J. Chelameswar and A.K. Sikri, JJ.)
1. Looking at the facts of these cases, we are of the view that we should not entertain these petitions at this stage as they are premature. Needless to say that it would be open to the petitioners to approach this Court at an appropriate stage and make all submissions on merits as the petitions have been disposed of as premature. The writ petitions are disposed of with the above observations.
Order dated 11-3-2015
(Before Anil R. Dave, J. Chelameswar and Madan B. Lokur, JJ.)
TP (C) No. 391 of 2015
2. Issue notice, returnable on 17-3-2015. Mr B.V. Balaram Das, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the Union of India. In view of the fact that the matter involving the same issue is pending before the High Court of Madras, we direct that there shall be stay of further proceedings in Writ Petition (MD) No. 69 of 2015 titled as Y. Krishnan v. Union of India pending before the High Court of Judicature of Madras, Bench at Madurai and the abovesaid matter shall not be taken up for hearing by the High Court till further orders.
3. List all the matters on 17-3-2015 at 10.30 a.m. (for whole day).
Order dated 7-4-2015
(Before Anil R. Dave, J. Chelameswar and Madan B. Lokur, JJ.)
The Order of the Court was delivered by
Anil R. Dave.— In this group of petitions, validity of the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has been challenged. The challenge is on the ground that by virtue of the aforestated amendment and enactment of the Act, basic structure of the Constitution of India has been altered and therefore, they should be set aside.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the parties appearing in person at length.
6. It has been mainly submitted for the petitioners that all these petitions should be referred to a Bench of five Judges as per the provisions of Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India for the reason that substantial questions of law with regard to interpretation of the Constitution of India are involved in these petitions. It has been further submitted that till all these petitions are finally disposed of, by way of an interim relief it should be directed that the Act should not be brought into force and the present system with regard to appointment of Judges should be continued.
7. The sum and substance of the submissions of the counsel opposing the petition is that all these petitions are premature for the reason that the Act has not come into force till today and till the Act comes into force, cause of action cannot be said to have arisen. In the circumstances, according to the learned counsel, the petitions should be rejected.
8. The learned counsel as well as parties in person have relied upon several judgments to substantiate their cases.
9. Looking at the facts of the case, we are of the view that these petitions involve substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India and therefore, we direct the Registry to place all the matters of this group before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India so that they can be placed before a larger Bench for its consideration.
10. As we are not deciding the cases on merits, we do not think it appropriate to discuss the submissions made by the learned counsel and the parties in person. It would be open to the petitioners to make a prayer for interim relief before the larger Bench as we do not think it appropriate to grant any interim relief at this stage.
Order dated 15-4-2015
(Before Anil R. Dave, J. Chelameswar, Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.)
11. List the matters before a Bench of which one of us (Justice Anil R. Dave) is not a member.
Order dated 22-4-2015
(Before Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. Chelameswar, Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.)
12. A preliminary objection, whether Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar should preside over this Bench, by virtue of his being the fourth seniormost Judge of this Court, also happens to be a member of the Collegium, was raised by the petitioners. Elaborate submissions were made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. After hearing all the learned counsel, we are of the unanimous opinion that we do not see any reason in law requiring Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar to recuse himself from hearing the matter. Reasons will follow.
13. Issue rule.
14. Mr Mishra Saurabh, Advocate waives service on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
15. The general consensus of the learned counsel representing the rival parties was that Writ Petition (C) No. 13 of 2015 should be treated as the lead case. We accept the aforesaid recommendation. The Secretary General of the Supreme Court shall issue notice in the abovenoted lead case, returnable on 23-4-2015, on all Standing Counsel in this Court, representing all the States. The Secretary General shall also upload the paper book of Writ Petition (C) No. 13 of 2015, on the Supreme Court website, so that it can be downloaded and accessed by the learned counsel representing different States, and by others impleaded therein.
16. The copies of the other petitions shall be served by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, in the office of the learned Attorney General for India. Each of the counsel representing the connected cases, shall file written briefs to indicate the additional issues (if any) arising therein, so as to enable this Court to determine, whether individual hearing is required in such connected matters.
17. List again on 23-4-2015 at 2.00 p.m.
Order dated 23-4-2015
(Before Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. Chelameswar, Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.)
18. Mr Mukul Rohatgi, the learned Attorney General, having obtained instructions, states that the constitution of the National Judicial Appointments Commission will be completed by nomination of two eminent persons, at the earliest. He further states, that consequent upon the nomination of two eminent persons, the National Judicial Appointments Commission shall presently deal with appointments of existing Additional Judges only. For further interim directions, the matter will be taken up on 11-5-2015. List again on 27-4-2015 at 10.30 a.m.
Order dated 12-5-2015
(Before Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. Chelameswar, Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.)
19. The prayer made by the learned Attorney General for India for disposing of the issue with reference to the need of revisiting the two judgments rendered by this Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 441 and Special Reference No. 1 of 1998, In re (1998) 7 SCC 739 to be decided first, as a preliminary issue, before hearing the main case on merits, is declined.
20. As an interim measure, we direct the appointment of Additional Judges in High Courts, already in office, to be continued for a period of three months or till the date of their superannuation, whichever is earlier, during the pendency of the matters in hand, till their disposal.
21. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, hearing of the case is deferred to 8-6-2015. To be listed on 8-6-2015 as part-heard at 10.30 a.m.
Court Masters