Legal Update..WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1005 OF 2022..

Shri Mathews J. Nedumpara & ors. …Petitioner(s)
V/s.
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India & Ors. …Respondent(s)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO. __ OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1005 OF 2022

Against the order dated 24.4.2024 by the Registrar (JA) under Order 45 Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules.

1. The instant Appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 for a declaration that the collegium system of appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and the High Court has resulted in the denial of equal opportunity to Petitioner nos. 1 to 6 who are practicing lawyers, and thousands of others who are equally if not more deserving, but are not considered for appointment. The Appellants also sought a further direction that the vacancies in the office of the judges of the High Courts and Supreme Court be notified, and applications for all eligible and desirous be invited and selection be made with notice to the public at large, inviting objections, if any.
2. The Appellants also sought a declaration that the Constitution (Ninety-Ninth) Amendment Act, 2014, and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014, was the will of the people on a matter which is in the exclusive province of executive and legislative policy, that the issue was not justiciable at all and that the judgment in the NJAC case was rendered void ab initio, non est and still born, one which never ever existed in the eyes of law, particularly since the so-called PIL of the SCAORA was not at all in the realm of a representative proceedings and was more of a “private interest litigation”. The Appellants further pointed out that it was a case of the fox being on the jury in the goose’s trial.
3. The writ petition was numbered and the Appellants, particularly, Appellant no. 1 mentioned the matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice in the open court not less that 5 times. The Hon’ble Chief Justice was pleased to direct the matter to be listed. However, the case was never once listed to the great dismay and surprise of the Appellants. Appellant no. 1 met the Registrar (Shri Puneet Sehgal) on a couple of occasions and brought to his notice the orders of the Hon’ble Chief Justice rendered in the open court but apparently never reduced to writing. The Appellant further requested the Registrar to bring his notice to the grievance of the Hon’ble Chief Justice. While matters stood thus, on 18.4.2024, the Appellant made an oral request yet again before the Hon’ble Chief Justice to list the above case for hearing, pointing out that despite repeated mentioning and orders of the Hon’ble Chief Justice in open court, the case remains to be listed. The Hon’ble Chief Justice was pleased to direct the Appellants to send email to the officer concerned and that his lordship would consider it. The Appellants accordingly drafted the requisite letter and before they could email it, the Appellant no. 1 received an email from the Registry, namely, an order purportedly under Order 45 Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules recalling the final registration of the aforesaid writ petition.
4. The Appellants were shocked beyond words. The writ petition was registered in the year 2022 as Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1005 of 2022. The Registry gave a final number after the Appellants had cured all the defects and after fulfilling and satisfying all the procedural requirements. The petition was ripe for hearing in the year 2022 and was mentioned before the Chief Justice in November 2022 and thereafter mentioned multiple times. The matter being of public interest it was reported by the papers every time it was mentioned.
5. It is a fundamental principle of law that the Registry is an aid, a facilitator, a servant of the Court. Its functions are primarily ministerial in nature. It has no jurisdiction to adjudicate pure questions of law and certainly not substantial questions of law of great ramifications as has been raised in the instant review petition. The principal prayer sought for in the petition was a declaration that the judgment in the NJAC case is one rendered void ab initio on a subject matter over which the Courts have no jurisdiction, and that too, in a proceedings which was in no way representative in nature, conducted entirely behind the back of the people, in a matter concerning the public at large.
6. In pronouncing a judgment upon a constitution issue of such great ramifications, which the Court alone is empowered to do, the Registrar has acted far beyond his jurisdiction. It is difficult to fathom how the Registrar could have ever ventured to take upon to himself the task of rendering a judgment on a larger constitutional issue brought to the court for adjudication by 6 lawyers and 2 well meaning citizens. That too, when the writ petition had been given a final number, the matter was mentioned numerous times before the Hon’ble Chief Justice and his lordship was pleased to direct that the matter be listed at least five. The Appellants have never heard of single instance in the whole of this country where a registrar ventures to de-register and dismiss a petition which is duly numbered, that too behind the back of the parties. There cannot be a more curious case than the instant one, indeed a ‘riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma’.

Prayer

a) To allow the appeal and set aside the order of the registrar, restore the number which was originally assigned to the writ petition and to further direct the Registry to list the petition for hearing before the appropriate bench