NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to consider a plea by Bombay Lawyers Association against the High Court's decision dismissing their petition against Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju and Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar for their remarks on judiciary and the collegium system for appointment of judges.
“What is this? Why have you come here," a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Ahsanuddin Amanullah asked the lawyer for the petitioner.
The bench said that it believed that the high court view is correct and if any authority has made an inappropriate statement, the top court has a broad view to deal with it and declined to entertain the plea.
The lawyers body challenged the High Court decision of February 1 rejecting its PIL against Rijiju and Dhankhar.
The organisation sought a declaration that the both were disqualified to hold the constitutional posts of Vice President and Minister of the Union Cabinet based on their behavior, conduct and utterances made in public.
The lawyers’ body argued that both, the VP and law minister, are continuing their "rampage of attack upon the Constitution with complete impunity".
"Both have violated the oath that they took at the time of assuming their respective offices, and, therefore, they have forfeited their right to continue in that office, by disrespecting this Court and Constitution of India," the plea said.
It questioned the validity of the Bombay High Court's order dismissing its plea on the ground that it was not a fit case to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The association claimed that Rijiju and Dhankhar showed lack of faith in the Constitution with their remarks and conduct.
“Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have launched frontal attack on the institution of judiciary, particularly the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in most derogatory language without any recourse which is available under the constitutional scheme to change the status quo as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India," the plea said.
It added, “Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are attacking the collegium system as well as basic structure in public platforms. This kind of unbecoming behaviour by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are holding constitutional posts is lowering the majesty of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the eye of public at large”.
The plea added that the respondent No.1 is the vice president of India as provided under Article 63 of the Constitution and affirmed his oath bearing allegiance to the Constitution vide Article 69. “The Respondent No.1’s attack upon the judiciary is also an attack on the Constitution upon which he had sworn an oath to bear true faith and allegiance,” it added.
Rijiju had said the Collegium system of appointing judges was “opaque and not transparent” and Dhankhar had questioned the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment that gave the basic structure doctrine and also questioned the Collegium system.
The Bombay High Court said, while rejecting a plea for action against Dhankar and Rijiju for their statements, said, "The credibility of the Supreme Court of India is skyhigh. It cannot be eroded or impinged by the statements of individuals."
"The constitutional authorities cannot be removed in the manner as suggested by the Petitioner. Fair criticism of the judgment is permissible. It is no doubt, fundamental duty of every citizen to abide by the Constitution. Majesty of law has to be respected," the HC had said.
The court also noted both Dhankar and Rijiju had said that the government has never undermined the authority of the judiciary and its independence will always remain untouched and promoted and they respect the ideals of the Constitution.
