The Supreme Court today dismissed a PIL, filed by a lawyers’ association, seeking a proper and new mechanism other than collegium for the appointment of judges. A Bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Uday Lalit, after hearing counsel Mathew J Nedumpara in a brief order, said “we can not amend the constitution”.
Advertisement
Supreme Court Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno earlier wrote a letter to President Duterte to remind him that only the high court could investigate administrative complaints against judges.
“We hear a lot about judicial activism these days, but we don’t often see it. But what you are asking can not be done without quashing certain constitutional provisions”, said the bench.
When advocates Mathew J Nedumpara and A C Philip, appearing for the lawyers’ body, referred to the ongoing vetting by the Centre of the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) to govern judges’ appointments, the bench said “we will not comment on MoP”. Justice Mishra further observed “can a proposed MoP be questioned?” Let it be crystallised. “Let it come out then we will see”.
Finally, the Bench dismissed the petition, saying the issues raised would amount to amending the Constitution.
It contended that the need for a public body, to be set up through legislation by Parliament, was necessary “to secure selection from a diverse and wider pool of candidates” for the judiciary.
The selection of kith and kin of serving and former judges and senior advocates as Judges in higher judiciary should and must stop, the lawyers’ body said in its plea.
Advertisement
“Now that the chief justice has determined that the Connecticut Supreme Court should hear all of the determinations made by the trial court in its partial decision, the Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding looks forward to the full consideration of the important issues addressed in Judge Moukawsher’s opinion”, the statement read.
