PRESS RELEASE BY MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA, WHO WAS THERE BEFORE THE FIVE JUDGE CONSTITUTION BENCH OF THE SUPREME COURT IN SUPPORT OF THE NJAC ACT.

1THE NATIONAL LAWYERS’ CAMPAIGN FOR
JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY AND REFORMS (Regd.)
       304, Hari Chambers, 3rd Floor, 54/68 SBS Marg, Near old Custom House, Fort Mumbai- 400 023.
E-Mail: aminrohini@gmail.com,  mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com
Cell # +91 98205 35428 ,  022 22626634
Mathews J. Nedumpara
PresidentMrs. Rohini M. Amin
Vice President     
MumbaiBijoy Krishna Adhikari,
Vice President
KolkataNavaneetha Krishnan
General SecretaryParbinder Singh Sethi,
Treasurer

PRESS RELEASE BY MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA, WHO WAS THERE BEFORE THE FIVE JUDGE CONSTITUTION BENCH OF THE SUPREME COURT IN SUPPORT OF THE NJAC ACT.

16th October, 2015

The National Lawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms considers that today’s judgment at the hands of the Five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court holding the NJAC Act as unconstitutional meant a dark day in the constitutional history of India.  The learned Attorney General and Solicitor General, who defended the Government, cannot entirely be able to wash off their hands for their total failure to raise the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the Writ Petitions at the hands of the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) and others, which is the primary reason for the Court allowing the challenge on the Act.  The Writ Petitions were filed under Article 32 of the Constitution whereunder a citizen could approach the Supreme Court directly without recourse to any other forum if his fundamental rights are infringed.  Therefore, a plea that the fundamental rights of SCAORA and other Petitioners is a sine qua non for the maintainability of the challenge to the constitutionality of the Act.  There was no such plea.

2. In Judges-1 case (S.P. Gupta), the Judges who were aggrieved by their transfer to other High Courts/non-reappointment of those who were appointed on ad hoc basis were the parties and, therefore, the Attorney General conceded maintainability of the Writ Petition.  In Judges-2 case, the question of maintainability was omitted to be raised at all.  In Judges-4 case, the present case, the learned Attorney General/Solicitor General not only did not raise the question of maintainability, but did not offer any support to the undersigned who raised the said issue.  The NJAC Act is non-justiciable, for, it is in the realm of legislative policy, not affecting any of the fundamental rights of SCAORA or anyone else.  A PIL under Article 32 will lie only where somebody’s fundamental right is affected and the person whose fundamental rights are so affected is unable to institute a Writ Petition on his own.  In other words, for a PIL to be maintained there must be a “person aggrieved”.  In this case there was no one who claims that he is a “person aggrieved” whose fundamental rights are infringed.  It appears that SCAORA has usurped its jurisdiction to represent the 125 crores people of this country.  The question remains as to whether the people of this country have authorized SCAORA or the eminent lawyers who were using the platform of SCAORA.  It is a misconception, though deep-rooted, that the Supreme Court can declare the law for the land.  The Supreme Court cannot; only the Parliament can declare the law of the land.  The Supreme Court can only interpret the laws; and interpretation constitutes to be in the realm of precedent.

3. The Supreme Court has brought back into existence the collegium system, which meant the superior Courts being literally monopolized by the kith and kin of sitting and former Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, celebrated lawyers, Chief Ministers, Governors et al, thereby rendering the concept of diversity in the higher judiciary wholly non-existent.  The collegium system is wholly opaque, absolutely lacking transparency.   Judiciary is one of the most important pillars of our constitutional democracy. Today’s decision will certainly cause irreparable damage to the said great pillar.  A time has come for the ordinary lawyers and ordinary public to campaign for greater transparency in higher judiciary, in the appointment of Judges and for video-recording of Court proceedings.

Jai Hind

(Mathews J. Nedumpara)
President