Supreme Court rejects PIL against next CJI

New Delhi: A vacation bench of the Supreme Court on Friday rejected at the admission stage a quo warranto writ petition questioning under what authority Justice J.S. Khehar was appointed as the 44th Chief Justice of India when he is disqualified from holding the post after the verdict quashing the law relating to national Judicial Appointments Commission.

The bench, comprising Justices R.K. Agrawal and D.Y. Chandrachud, rejected the arguments of the petitioner National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency that Justice Khehar, while heading a five-judge constitution bench, had benefited himself as the judgment had revived the collegium system for appointment of judges in the higher judiciary.

The bench observed that there was no question of Justice Khehar being considered ineligible for the post as it was a decision taken by the collegium comprising of not only him but also four other senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.

The Bench said “Since the petitioners have praised the quality of Justice J S Khehar, there is no question of him being considered ineligible for being appointed as the CJI. So far as this allegation is concerned, it is sufficient to mention that collegium not only consist of the CJI but also four other senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.,”

Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, appearing for the petitioner argued that the issue of judiciary’s independence and appointment of judges was important and it was “painful” for them to approach the apex court with such a petition. He alleged that judges in the higher judiciary were coming from “a few families only” and “it cannot be the exclusive domain of some persons”. “This court has to listen to the critics. Democracy is all about criticism,” he said, adding that Justice Khehar should refuse to become the next CJI. The petitioner also argued that court may direct the Centre to move the apex court for reviewing the NJAC verdict. The Bench dismissing the PIL said it is for the Centre and the petitioner to seek review and the court cannot give a direction in this regard.