I have been seeking a reconsideration of the NJAC judgment from the very day it was pronounced in 2015.

I took up the matter with almost all Chief Justices since then, except Justice Gogoi. I didn’t take it up with Justice Gogoi because I hardly had any hope at all, whereas I had some hope with the others.

Chief Justice Chandrachud was, in a way, reassuring. He repeatedly assured me, “I will hear you, I will hear you. We will constitute a Bench; we will have to constitute a Bench.” But what did he actually do? He quietly got Writ Petition No. 1005 of 2022 “lodged”, i.e., dismissed by his subordinate, one Puneet Kumar, Registrar Judicial, who often sits below the podium in the CJI’s court—by deregistering it. Can anyone imagine such an atrocity?

After Justice Chandrachud came Justice Khanna, and he did the same thing. Frankly, I did not have much expectation from Justice Khanna either.

I knew Justice Gavai from his days at the Bombay High Court, so I had only little expectation from him.

When Chief Justice Surya Kant took office, I had a great deal of hope, as he is a first-generation lawyer. I mentioned the matter—the fresh petition filed while Justice Gavai was the Chief Justice—on his first day of office as the CJI, when several foreign judges were present. Chief Justice Surya Kant said, “Jaan bujhke aaya hai, ab aapse Hindi mein baat karega” (You have come deliberately; now I will speak to you in Hindi). He said that he would list the matter. However, after a couple of months, when nothing had happened, I mentioned it again. His Lordship then remarked, “There is no such petition.”

I could sense the hesitation—to put it mildly. Thereafter, I mentioned the matter twice, the second time being today. On both occasions, the video and audio feeds were muted.

One thing is beyond belief and undeniable: the judges know there is no way the NJAC case can be defended in open court, and there is no way the judgment can be justified. It is so absurd and outrageous. The NJAC represents the will of the people, having received the unanimous assent of both Houses of Parliament and ratification by a majority of the state legislatures. It does not violate anybody’s fundamental rights so as to be justiciable; it is a matter of pure legislative policy as to how judges in this country should be appointed. No one could ever claim that their fundamental rights were infringed by it. Thus, no petition would lie under Article 32. It was not justiciable.

Even assuming it were justiciable, such a petition could only be heard as a representative proceeding. The press in this country is guilty of spreading misinformation. The NJAC itself was a mini-collegium: three of its six members were judges, chaired by the CJI, and the two eminent members were to be selected by a committee consisting of the CJI, the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition. In a democracy—whether the BJP or Congress is in power—the executive ought to have a role in appointments. Appointment is an executive function, not a judicial one.

I am absolutely convinced of one thing: unless and until we abolish the collegium system, restore the NJAC (or establish an even better mechanism for open selection and appointment of judges), and abolish the Senior Designation system—which has created two classes of lawyers and denied justice to 99% of the legal fraternity and the litigating public—our judiciary is doomed.

Reforms must come through constitutional means inside the courts—via petitions and legal processes—not on the streets. However, a day may come when people take to the streets, and that must be prevented.

I will be mentioning my petition on abolishing the designation system tomorrow, and I hope the video and audio will not be muted.