Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by a registered Trust, Suraz India Trust, claiming to act in the public interest. The Trust sought to challenge the primacy of the collegium system established by previous judgments of the Supreme Court, specifically the decisions in Advocate on Record Association v. Union of India and Special Reference No.1 of 1998. The petitioner argued that these judgments effectively amended Article 124(2) of the Constitution, which outlines the appointment process for Supreme Court Judges, by imposing restrictions on the President's consultation powers. The petitioner contended that Article 124(2) allows the President to consult any Judge of the Supreme Court or High Court, not just the four seniormost Judges. The Trust's Chairman, Mr. Rajiv Daiya, appeared in person but was unable to assist the Court, leading to the appointment of Mr. A.K. Ganguli as amicus curiae. The Attorney General for India, Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, supported the petitioner but raised concerns regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that a Trust cannot claim violation of fundamental rights and lacks locus standi. The Court considered the arguments regarding the necessity of a larger Bench to address the constitutional questions raised, referencing previous cases that established the binding nature of larger Bench decisions. Ultimately, the Court decided to refer the matter to the Chief Justice for appropriate directions, indicating the complexity and significance of the issues involved.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Appointments - Interpretation of Article 124(2) - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 124(2) - The petitioner contended that the judgments of the 7-Judge and 9-Judge Benches effectively amended Article 124(2) by restricting the President's consultation to the four seniormost Judges, contrary to the Article's clear language. Held that the matter raises substantial constitutional questions requiring consideration by a larger Bench (Paras 6-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgments of the 7-Judge and 9-Judge Benches effectively amended Article 124(2) of the Constitution and the implications of the collegium system for judicial appointments.
Final Decision
The Court decided to refer the matter to the Chief Justice for appropriate directions, indicating the need for a larger Bench to address the constitutional questions raised.
Law Points
- Article 32
- Article 124(2)
- locus standi
- judicial interpretation
- collegium system
- constitutional amendment
- binding precedent
