IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.___ OF 2024 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
IN THE MATTER OF:
SHRI MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & 9 ORS. ….PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND ORS.
…RESPONDENTS
PAPER BOOK
(KINDLY SEE INDEX INSIDE)
MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & 9 ORS
PARTIES – IN – PERSON
9820535428/ 9920477447 /9447165650
INDEX
SL. NO. PARTICULARS PAGES
1. Listing Performa
2. Synopsis & List of Dates
3. Writ Petition with Affidavit.
4. Appendix
Relevant portion of the constitution of India Art. 14, 19 and 21.
5. ANNEXURE P-1
A copy of letter dated 24.03.2015 addressed to the President, Vice-president, Prime Minister, Speaker and the Law Minister, seeking their intervention for a fair hearing inasmuch as arguments in opposition of the collegium were not allowed to be advanced.
6. ANNEXURE P –2
A copy of the order dated 5.11.2015, directing the Government to make an announcement in the newspapers inviting suggestions and opinions from the public at large for improving the collegium, the Court manifestly substituting itself for the Parliament.
7. ANNEXURE P-3
A copy of judgment dated 30.11.2016, dismissing the petition seeking reconsideration of the NJAC judgment, observing that Petitioners can seek a review.
8. ANNEXURE P-4
A copy of the order dated 27.11.2018 in R.P no. (c) 3831 of 2018 which was filed in furtherance of the this Court dismissing the same in chambers, without affording an opportunity to be heard, rendering the remedy of review an exercise in futility.
9. ANNEXURE P-5
A copy of the miscellaneous appeal filed against the Registrar’s order dated 24.04.2024 dismissing W.P (L) no. 1005 of 2002 without notice to the Petitioners therein without hearing them entirely behind their back and that too, after de-registering the said numbered writ petition. The appeal memorandum contains the order of the Registrar dated 24.4.2024.
PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING
SECTION PIL
The case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box)”
Central Act: (Title) Under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India
Section: Under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Central Rule: (Title): NA
Rule No(s): NA
State Act: (Title) NA
Section: NA
State Rule: (Title) NA
Rule No(s): NA
Impugned Interim Order: (Date) NA
Impugned Final Order/Decree: (Date) NA
High Court: (Name) NA
Names of Judges:
NA
Tribunal / Authority: (Name) NA
1. Name of Matter:
Civil
Criminal
2. (a) Petitioner/Appellant No. 1: Shri Mathews J. Nedumpara
(b) E-mail ID: : mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com
(c) Mobile Phone Number: 9820535428
3. (a) Respondent No. 1: THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA & ORS.
(b) E-mail ID: NA
(c) Mobile Phone Number: NA
4. (a) Main category classification:
(b) Sub classification:
5. Not to be listed before: NA
6. Similar / Pending matter: NA
7. Criminal Matters:
(a) Whether accused / convict has surrendered
Yes
No
(b) FIR No. Date:
(c) Police Station: NA
(d) Sentence Awarded: NA
(e) Sentence
Undergone: NA
8. Land Acquisition Matters:
(a) Date of Section 4 notification: NA
(b) Date of Section 6 notification: NA
(c) Date of Section 17 notification: NA
9. Tax Matters: State the tax effect:
10. Special Category:
(First petitioner/appellant only) NA
SC/S
T
Disable d
Lega
l
Senior citizen > 65
Years Woma
n/chil d
Aid Case
In custody
11. Vehicle number (in case of Motor Accident Claim matters:
12. Decided cases with citation:
Date: __.10.2022 AOR for petitioner(s) / Appellant(s)
Place: New Delhi (Name)
SYNOPSIS
The instant petition is filed for a declaration that the collegium system of appointment of judges has resulted in the denial of equal opportunity for the Petitioners and thousands of lawyers who are eligible, meritorious and who deserve to be considered for appointment. A mechanism in substitution of the Collegium is the need of the hour. The Petitioners have made repeated representations to the Government to bring about the requisite mechanism. However, nothing concrete has taken shape. Moreover, rather than the Government, it is for the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself to correct the grave error in creating the Collegium and in quashing the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act which was enacted to remedy the same.
The Petitioner no. 1 and other office bearers of the NLC and others instituted W.P no. 1005 of 2022 placing unstinted faith in this Hon’ble Court that this Court would wholeheartedly admit that it has erred and will not persist in error and will undo the collegium by revisiting the NJAC judgment. The Hon’ble Chief Justice was pleased to repeatedly assure to list the matter for hearing. However, the Registrar, in manifest defiance of the orders passed by the Chief Justice in the open court, on 24.4.2024 passed an order de-registering the said numbered writ petition, without notice to the petitioners and without hearting them, to the utter shock and dismay of the Petitioners.
The Petitioners have faith in the commitment of this Court to undo injustice and render justice.
Hence the instant writ petition under Article 32 of the constitution, in the unstinted faith in the impartiality and integrity of this Hon’ble Court.
LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
1993 Collegium came into existence by virtue of a Judgement of 9 Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.
31.12.2014 The President gave his assent to the Constitution 99th (Amendment) Act and the NJAC Act. The Constitutional 99th (Amendment) Act also received the assent of majority of the states.
16.10.2015 A Five Judge Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India declared the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act and the NJAC Act as unconstitutional thereby revived the Collegium. Since then, the appointment and transfer of the Supreme Court and the High Courts is at the hands of the Collegium which has resulted in denial of equal opportunities for the Petitioners and thousands of Lawyers who are eligible, meritorious and who deserved to be considered.
1ST Petitioner instituted a petition under Article 32 countering the challenge on the Constitution 99th Amendment Act and the NJAC Act, pointing out not merely the non-maintainability of the PIL of the SCOARA and others but also pointing out that the collegium when it usurped to itself the power of appointment mostly appointed their kith and kin, and the sons and nephews of powerful lawyers and judges, political leaders, cabinet ministers, governors.
This Court dismissed the petition preferred by the NLC and Ors seeking recall of the judgement dated 16.10.2015 of this court observing that they can seek a review.
The NLC and others had not immediately sought a review of the judgement dated 16.10.2015 because it was common knowledge that all review petitions are dismissed in chambers, without a hearing. However in view of the orders of this Court dismissing the plea for the recall of judgement of the NJAC case a review was filed.
27.11.2018 The review petition so instituted was dismissed in chambers by a cyclostyle one-line order.
2022 Petitioner no. 1 and others filed a fresh petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India which after much struggle with the registry was numbered as W.P (c) no. 1005 of 2022.
14.11.2022
18.04.2023
8.12.2023
9.01.2024 The Hon’ble Chief Justice was pleased to repeatedly reassure the Petitioners that their case seeking recall of the NJAC Judgement will be listed for hearing.
24.04.2024 Without notice to the Petitioner, the Registrar dismissed the said writ petition, namely, W.P (c) no. 1005/2022 by his order dated 24.4.2024, bias de-registering the petition which was finally numbered, which is unheard and unthinkable, to say the least .
Once a petition is registered and assigned a final registration number, the Registry’s job comes to an end. The Registry is a functus offio. The Court alone has the jurisdiction to deal with the same. No judicial proceedings can be conducted in chambers/in camera, except those which cannot be conducted owing to the sensitivity of the matter. The Registrar also forgot that he is not a judge, but an officer invested of ministerial function.
Petitioner filed an appeal challenging the order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the Registry. The Appeal has not till date being listed and that is an exercise which is all certain to be futile.
The collegium system is a synonym for nepotism, favouritism. It has reduced a judicial into a dynasty in all regard. The earlier it is got ridden of the better and the assured means of securing the same is to invoke the jurisdiction under Article2 of the Constitution.
Hence this Petition
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ___ OF 2022
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA
ADVOCATE,
12-F, Harbour Heights, Colaba Causeway, Mumbai – 400 005
2. DR. CHITTOOR RAJAMANNAR
ADVOCATE
Kizhakkekalappurackal House, Vengalloor, P.O Kumaramangalam Village, Thodupuzha Taluk, Idukki , District, Kerala – 685608.
3. ROHINI AMIN
ADVOCATE,
B-705, Nirman Apartments, R.J Marg, Pump House, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400 093
4. MARIA NEDUMPARA
ADVOCATE
12-F, Harbour Heights, Colaba Causeway, Mumbai – 400 005
5. HEMALI KURNE,
ADVOCATE
504, 28-A Wing, Shubhshagun
Building, Rishikesh CHS Ltd., Sector – 34, Mansarovar, Navi Mumbai – 410209
6. RAJESH VISHNU ADREKAR ADVOCATE
401, D-14, Yogi Vardhan CHS, Yogi Nagar Road, Yogi Nagar, Borivili West, Mumbai-400092, Maharashtra
7. AMIT KAKRI
ADVOCATE
205 Dosti Carnation, Dosti Acres, Wadala East, Mumbai – 400037.
8. MOHAMMED YOUSUF KHAN
ADVOCATE
951, Kohinoor City Phase 1, Kirol Road, Kurla West, Mumbai-400070
9. MANISHA NIMESH MEHTA
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT
1905, Rosella, Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar, Mumbai – 400075, Maharashtra.
10. SADHANA BHARAT RAI
Vignaharta CHS, Flat no. 604, Plot no. 156, Sector 21, Karghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210.
…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
OF INDIA
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi
2. THE COLLEGIUM OF THE HON’BLE
JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Represented by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi
3. SECRETARY GENERAL,
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi
4. UNION OF INDIA
Represented by its secretary,
Department of Legal of Affairs
Ministry of Law and Justice
4th floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan New Delhi-110 001.
5. PUNEET SEHGAL, THE REGISTAR,
J-A, Supreme Court Of India
New Delhi
6. REGISTRAR GENERAL,
Supreme Court Of India,
New Delhi
7. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE PRIME MINISTER
Primer Minster’s office, 7 Lok Kalyan Marg, New Delhi
7. LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION IN THE PARLIAMENT
Lok Sabha New Delhi
8. PRESIDENT OF INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS
24, Akhbar Road, New Delhi,
9. PRESIDENT OF BJP
BJP head quarters
Jhandewala Road, New Delhi.
10. SECRETARY, COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA
Ajoy Bhavan, 15, Indrajit Gupta Marg, New Delhi, India-110002
11. PRESIDENT OF THE AAM AADMI PARTY
206, Rouse Avenue, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg, ITO, New Delhi, India-110002
12. GENERAL SECRETARY, TRINAMOOL CONGRESS
30B Harish Chatterjee Street, Kolkata, West Bengal, India – 700026 .
13. GENERAL SECRETARY, DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM
Anna Arivalayam, 367-369, Annasalai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.
14. GENERAL SECRETARY, TELGU DESSAM PARTY
Telgudesam Party State Office, NTR Trust Bhavanam Road No. 2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034, Andhra Pradesh.
…RESPONDENTS
PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR DECLARATORY AND OTHER REMEDIES
TO
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONERS ABOVE NAMED.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
1. The Petitioners are the citizens of India, lawyers and litigants. Petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the President, Vice President and General Secretary of the National Lawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms (NLC), an organisation registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. They invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of their fundamental rights.
2. Every member of the Bar is entitled to be able to aspire and be considered for the selection and appointment to the office of the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, if eligible. The Petitioner no. 1 and 2 who have been agitating the cause of an open and transparent selection and appointment to the office of the judges of the High Courts and Supreme Court have now crossed the age of 65 years.
3. A citizen, a litigant is entitled to have his cases decided by men and women occupying the august office of the judges of the High Courts and Supreme Court who have the highest caliber, competence and integrity, which can be ensured only where the vacancies are notified, applications are invited and selections are made in an open and transparent manner. These rights undoubtedly fall within the ambit of Part III of the Constitution.
4. The Petitioners are constrained to institute the instant writ petition because their fundamental rights as referred above have been infringed by the judgments of this Court of 1993, 1999 and 2015, popularly known as the Judges-2, Judges-3 and the NJAC case, respectively. The Petitioners have ventured to do so in the unstinted faith that the said judgments which are rendered void ab initio being one without jurisdiction, behind the back of the people of this country, an unthinkable error, would be corrected at the hands of this Court. The public perception is that the Judges-2, Judges-3 and the NJAC case, the judges themselves were the actor/plaintiff and judex/judge and therefore it is unrealistic to expect this Hon’ble Court to be objective and impartial, acknowledge past errors and undo the same. However, the Petitioners do not entirely subscribe to the said pessimistic attitude and remain hopeful.
5. Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum, to err is human, to persist is diabolical, said Seneca. Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come, said Victor Hugo. The time for the dismantlement of the collegium and substitution thereof has come.
6. Today, all right thinking people without exception agree that the collegium system of appointment and transfer of judges has completely failed the people of this country and that a time has come to abolish it, because it has become a synonym for nepotism and favouritism, is undemocratic. Sadly, there is no concrete step from any quarter, be it the government, the opposition, the bar or the judges, to dismantle it and embrace a system which is transparent and which affords equal opportunity to the less privileged section of the bar who are equally or more competent than the kith and kin. This scenario makes the attempt of the Petitioners to bring an end to the collegium, a Clarion call.
7. Certain vested interests, powerful members of the Supreme Court Bar who always believed that in the selection and appointment of the judges they had a primary say, used the Supreme Court Advocate On Record Association (SCOARA) as a pawn in re-writing the constitution in the name of the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution, namely, Articles 124 and 217, regarding appointment of judges to the High Courts and Supreme Court.
8. Their plea was curious. They pleaded that the independence of the judiciary is a basic structure of the Constitution. And that the core of that independence lies not in the discharge of duty post appointment, but in the appointment itself. (They could not have said otherwise because post appointment a judge is absolutely free and cannot be removed from office except by a motion for impeachment, for proved misconduct, which has received the assent of two-third of both houses of parliament). That the independence of judiciary can be protected only if the opinion of the Chief Justice of India, one of the consultees in the appointment process is given primacy over the other consultees namely, the Chief Justice and the Governor of the State concerned in the case of appointment of the judges of the High Court and in the case of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of India and such other judges of the Supreme Court and High Court that the President may consider appropriate.
9. They pleaded that the word ‘consultation’ does not mean even concurrence, but primacy of the opinion of the Chief Justice of India. The further plea was that the opinion of the Chief Justice of India is not his personal opinion but the opinion of the plurality of judges reflected through the collegium of judges. Thus, the collegium system, unknown to the constitution, came into existence by a judicial coup d’état.
10. The concept of independence of judiciary, described as a basic structure, thus assumed a curious meaning. The basic structure means the opinion of the collegium. This led to another curious proposition that collegium is a basic structure of the constitution and even a constitutional amendment which would dismantle the collegium would be violation of the basic structure and thus unconstitutional. For, in Kesavananda Bharti, this Court held that the basic structure of the constitution cannot be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment. This manifest and undeniable perversion was precisely the “ratio” of the judgment of the NJAC case, which the Petitioner begs to refer in greater detail infra.
11. The Judges-2 case came to be delivered at a time when we had a weak minority government in power at the Centre. Therefore, no question came to be raised from any quarters including the executive that the judgment of the 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the Judges-2 case is nothing but the re-writing of the constitution in the name of interpretation of the constitution, even without a veil and that it should be undone. The appointment of the judges is an executive function. Under the constitutional scheme, the Government of the day is accountable to the people for the exercise of its executive power through the Parliament. A responsible government in a parliamentary democracy means that it is accountable to the people for its every action, and the moment it loses the confidence of the House, which represents the people, its life comes to an end. The President is a ceremonial head who is to act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers. Judicial appointments fall in the exclusive realm of the executive and what the constitution mandates is a duty on the part of the executive to consult the Chief Justice of India and other functionaries/consultees named in the constitution. A 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court in S.P Gupta’s case (Judges-1 case) reaffirmed this undeniable proposition.
12. The Judges-2 case brought into existence a curious scenario unheard in any legal system, where judges appoint themselves. A system where judges appoint themselves is absolutely antithetical to the concept of constitutional democracy and a government responsible to the Parliament, and the concept of separation of powers. It was certain to cause unthinkable and irreparable damage to the institution of judiciary and the concept of democracy. It was the constitutional duty of the Government of the day to seek correction of the Judges-2 case, a grave error which can have no parallel in legal history. The Vajpayee Government’s efforts to correct the grave error failed because of the crafty designs of certain vested interests. The Presidential reference of 1999, namely, the Judges-3 case, failed to achieve anything concrete, inasmuch as the then Attorney General expressly made it clear that the Government is not seeking a review of the Judges-2 case, and thereby allowed an opportunity for correction to be lost, to say the least.
13. The Judges-3 case did not achieve anything except enlarging the number of the collegium of the Supreme Court from 3 to 5 members and further mandate that the proceedings of the Collegium be reduced to writing.
14. It is said blood is thicker than water. The judges assuming to themselves the power of appointment, largely appointed their kith and kin, so too, that of powerful lawyers and politicians as judges of the High Court. With the advent of PIL, a new practice, contrary to the elementary principles, where the Court passes judgments concerning the public at large, entirely, behind their back, the office of the judge of the Supreme Court and High Court became a very powerful office, which the founding fathers would not have imagined in their wildest of dreams. Nepotism and favouritism in judicial appointments became a topic of common discussion in the corridors of the court and elsewhere. This led to an ever increasing demand for dismantling the collegium and the substitution thereof by an independent and transparent method of selection and appointment by the creation of a body specially designated for the same.
15. The Vajpayee Government was followed by UPA-1 and 2. The UPA Government, bogged in allegations of corruption and scandal, had neither the inclination nor the wherewithal to assert the legitimate constitutional powers of the Executive in the matter of appointments. The UPA Government, however, envisaged two enactments, namely, the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Bill and the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010, as a means of bring greater transparency and accountability in judiciary.
16. The Modi Government, soon after it assumed office, piloted the Bills for substituting the Collegium with the NJAC. On 31 December, 2014, the President gave his assent to the Constitution 99th (Amendment) Act and the NJAC Act. The Constitutional 99th (Amendment) Act also received the assent of majority of the states. Both Houses of Parliament unanimously passed the bills, Shri Ram Jethmalani being the sole dissenter.
17. The NJAC was the will of the people. But certain vested interests sought to ensure that it was aborted it even before it was born. Accordingly, SCAORA was once again used as a pawn. A PIL was filed in its name. As stated above, their strange plea was that the collegium is a basic structure of the constitution and that the NJAC is unconstitutional because it seeks to substitute the Collegium with the NJAC. The basic structure of the constitution cannot be infringed, therefore, the Constitutional 99th (Amendment) Act is unconstitutional, because it seeks to dismantle the collegium. Offering this manifestly perverse reason, the 5-judge constitution bench struck down the Constitutional 99th (Amendment) Act and the NJAC Act. Since this perverse proposition is stated in 1034 pages, it did not receive much public scrutiny and dissection.
18. The other reason offered is that the NJAC contemplates participation of 2 members of the civil society in the NJAC. The Court felt that to allow 2 members of the civil society to be part of the NJAC would amount to infringement of the concept of independence of judiciary. The Court termed the two members of civil society who were to be nominated by a committee comprising of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India to be “outsiders”. It is only apposite to extract from the judgement of Justice A.K Goel [(2016) 5 SCC 1] as infra.
1090. “…Other two persons to be nominated by a Committee which also has predominant political voice to be placed at par with the CJI in initiating and finalizing a proposal destroys the original scheme beyond its identity. Any suggestion before initiation of a name or feedback even after initiation may be useful and may not affect independence of judiciary but equal participation by the Law Minister and two outsiders in final decision for initiation or appointment can be detrimental to the independence of judiciary. It cannot be wished away by presuming that the Law Minister and the two distributors (sic) will not be influenced by any extraneous consideration”.
19. Petitioner no. 1 was the only person who instituted a petition and openly came out in support of the NJAC in the hearing of the NJAC case. The Petitioner’s plea that the very petition is not maintainable, primarily on five grounds, was buried. The plea which the Petitioner raised were:
a) The PIL filed by the SCAORA is not maintainable because it did not plead the violation of any fundamental right without which a petition under Article 32 will not lie;
b) the NJAC was in the realm of legislative and executive policy, namely, the manner of appointment and transfer of judges, and therefore not justiciable;
c) Even assuming it to be justiciable, it could only be maintained in a proceedings which is representative in nature, otherwise, it would lead to a situation where on a matter of policy, the court seeks to substitute its wisdom with that of the legislature, that too behind the back of the people;
d) The Court has no jurisdiction whatsoever, because the record of a Parliament, which the NJAC Act is, is binding on all. Because when the Parliament enacts a law, every citizen is symbolically present and it is with their consent that a law is enacted. On the contrary, the record of a court is binding only on the parties before it and none else. And no court has the power to bind by its decision persons who were not before it. The judgment of the Court in the NJAC case is one rendered entirely behind the back of the people. They were not parties to the case, nor were heard;
e) The judges were the de facto petitioners, for it is perceived to be a means to undo a constitutional amendment which would abolish the collegium, a creation of the court, and therefore, the Court in entertaining the PIL acted contrary to the first principles that nobody shall be a judge of his own cause. The judgement therefore, was a nullity, one rendered without jurisdiction.
20. The PIL filed by SCOARA was wholly unmaintainable. Petitioner no. 1 raised the aforesaid contentions in the course of the hearing and also by way of an argument note. However, the 1034 page judgment contained no reference of it, except for the issue of recusal which Petitioner no. 1 had raised on the ground of conflict of interest.
21. Who can invoke Article 32 is a question which, in the ordinary course, would not have offered any difficulty to answer. The reason is simple. Only a person whose rights are infringed can approach a court for the enforcement of his rights, and if what is infringed is his fundamental right, any citizen can approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of the same, and that right is guaranteed. It is in consonance with the concept of ubi jus ibi remedium, where there is infringement of a right, law will provide for remedy. In other words, right, remedy, forum. However, the much hallowed judgment of the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharti, known as the Fundamental rights case, the so-called north star, brought in a new scenario. Namely, lawyers and activists invoking Article 32 alleging violation of the basic structure and in the same breath swearing that none of their rights, much less fundamental rights, are violated. They state on oath that they have no personal interest and they institute the PIL not for the enforcement of their right as a person aggrieved. The Kesavananda Bharti and the so-called PIL jurisprudence opened the doors of the Supreme Court under Article 32 to persons who are admittedly busy bodies. This is the root cause of all malaises which the judiciary faces today.
22. Petitioner no. 1 filed a petition under Article 32 countering the challenge on the Constitution 99th Amendment Act and the NJAC Act, pointing out not merely the non-maintainability of the PIL of the SCOARA and others but also pointing out that the collegium when it usurped to itself the power of appointment mostly appointed their kith and kin, and the sons and nephews of powerful lawyers and judges, political leaders, cabinet ministers, governors etc. The National Lawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms (NLC) an organisation of first generation lawyers registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, conducted a study as to the political, familial and other background of the judges and chief justices of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
23. Since no official information is available in the public domain, NLC had to collect the information entirely from unofficial sources. The study was not a perfect one. But what it revealed was shocking. Appointments to the High Court between the ages of 40 to 52, almost entirely without exception, was of those who are the kith and kin or juniors of the judges and senior lawyers, or the kith and kin of Chief Ministers, Governors or other politically powerful. The judges who were elevated from the subordinate judiciary to the High Court, by and large were from ordinary backgrounds, first generation lawyers. Lawyers who are elevated as judges of the High court above the age of 52 were also mostly first generation lawyers. That is the reason why CJIs and the Senior Judges of the High Courts and Supreme Court, who formed the collegium are mostly only dynasties.
24. This progeny chart as aforesaid was widely circulated and was tendered to the bench in open court. However, the 1034 page judgment contains no mention of the same.
25. The plea of Petitioner No. 1 before the constitution bench was that the collegium is a synonym for nepotism and favouritism, the root cause of all the malaise that plagues the judiciary, and that the NJAC is the remedy which the Parliament – the people of this country – has prescribed. The solution is to bring in a mechanism of selection and appointment akin to IAS, IPS, IFS etc. where vacancies are notified, application are invited from all eligible and an open and transparent selection and appointment is made. The NJAC, if allowed to take birth, would undoubtedly facilitate such a selection. And if the NJAC, for any reason, were to fail to conduct an open selection, it will be rectified simply by public opinion, for even the worst tyrant is afraid of public opinion.
26. The Petitioner No. 1 also brought to the notice of the court that the perception of the informed section of the public is that the NJAC case was engineered by certain powerful lobbies, that the judges are the actor and judex at the same time, that it will not win the confidence of the public, and that if it were to strike down the NJAC Act it would be a grave error for which the court alone would be responsible. For the Petitioner no. 1, nothing could have been more preposterous and a bigger recipe for calamity than for the judges to presume that they alone possess infinite wisdom, far superior than the collective wisdom of the people of this country expressed through their representatives. For him, it was unthinkable for the Court not to introspect and consider that if they were to strike down the Act, would the court be placing itself accountable for the failure of the justice delivery system, would it not be accountable to the posterity.
27. To avert the striking down of the NJAC Act, which the Petitioner saw to be a fait accompli, the Petitioner asked for the dismantling of the entire bench and the substitution thereof by a bench comprising of judges who are not and will not be a part of the collegium which would take re-birth on the quashing of the NJAC Act. Petitioner no. 1 also submitted a list of eleven judges who would not be a part of the collegium. However, the said plea was not even recorded.
28. The First Petitioner in apprehension of the impending calamity, namely the quashing of the NJAC at the hands of this court, addressed a letter to The President of India, To the Vice-president, The Prime Minister, The Speaker and the Law Minister, seeking their intervention so that arguments in opposition of the collegium too are heard and a just decision is taken. A copy of the said letter dated 24.03.2015, is annexed as ANNEXURE “ P-1 ” What the Petitioner had dreaded, namely, the striking down of the Constitution 99th (Amendment) Act and the NJAC Act, a great calamity, happened.
29. The Petitioner No. 1’s entire effort to prevent the striking down of the NJAC failed, not merely because of his inconsequence. There has been a calculated, engineered false propaganda to the effect that the NJAC will lead to ‘Sarkari’ judges. The common people, even the informed sections of society including lawyers, happened to misconceive that the NJAC is a body entirely controlled by the Government, consisting of the Law Minister and the members nominated by the Central Government. The false propaganda was that the independence of judiciary is in peril. All future judges were going to be ‘Sarkari’ judges. This was a ploy of the vested interests which unwittingly gained much support of the media. Very few people noted that the NJAC too was a semi collegium, where the 3 out of the 6 members are judges (the Chief Justice of India and two senior most judges), that the judges have a veto power. If any of the two judges voted against, it amounts to a veto and no appointment can be made.
30. The two eminent persons are to be nominated by a committee comprising of the Chief Justice of India, Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The role of the judiciary in the selection process was in no way undermined. In truth, the judges remained all powerful even under the NJAC. The only difference was that they could no longer appoint in secrecy, entirely at their sweet will. That they could no longer act as an ‘imperio in imperium’. The judiciary has to share the power of appointment, with the executive which is accountable to the people.
31. What the Petitioner no. 1 feared eventually became a reality, the constitutional 99th Amendment Act and the NJAC was quashed and set aside, and the collegium was restored. The Petitioner’s plea that the said acts had received the asset of the Parliament and was ratified by majority of the states on a matter of legislative policy and that the Courts are invested of no power to nullify the will of the people, that too, behind the back of the people was not considered at all.
32. There, however, was some little reason for the Petitioners to feel vindicated. The Court which had set aside, nay, de facto repealed the said Acts, listed the matter for hearing on 6th November, 2015 to consider the ways and means for improving the collegium. The Court, in a sense acknowledging the point made out by Petitioner no. 1 that in a constitutional democracy the courts have no power to undo a legislation behind the back of the people and that its entertaining a PIL was undemocratic, by order dated 5.11.2015 directed the Government to make an announcement in the newspapers inviting suggestions and opinions from the public at large for improving the collegium. A copy of the said order dated 5.11.2015 is produced as Annexure “P-2”. Not less than 10,000 opinions were received by the ministry of law and justice.
33. One of the Additional Solicitor Generals were asked to collate the opinions. The said exercise, apart from being a moral victory for those who opposed the PIL, could serve no useful purpose at all. The collegium was restored. Judges, today, wield greater power than even the cabinet ministers. They are allotted huge bungalows and extended better facilities than even cabinet ministers. ‘The powers that be’ continued to find the office of a judge to be a promising career option for their progeny. The call for glasnost and perestroika, which Justice Kurien Joseph made while striking down the NJAC remain to be mere words.
34. However, Petitioner no. 1 and others concerned for transparency in judicial appointments invoked the jurisdiction under Article 32 seeking correction of the grave error which the NJAC judgment undoubtedly was. This Court by order dated 30.11.2016 dismissed the petition, observing that they can seek a review. A copy of the said order dated 30.11.2016 is produced as Annexure “P-3”.
35. The Petitioner no. 1 and others had not immediately sought a review because it is common knowledge that all review petitions are dismissed in chambers, without a hearing. The Petitioner no.1, NLC and others, however, in furtherance of the aforesaid order instituted a review in challenge of the NJAC judgment. They also made a request to the Hon’ble Chief Justice in the open court, apart from a written application, for an open court hearing. However, by order dated 27.11.2018 the review petition was dismissed in chambers by a cyclostyle one line order. A copy of the order dated 27.11.2018 in R.P no. (c) 3831 of 2018 is marked as Annexure “P-4”
36. The institution of judiciary is, after all, a human institution, susceptible to error. The Petitioners, therefore, firmly believe that it is possible to undo the error and the resultant injustice. The Petitioner no. 1 and others accordingly approached the various political parties and filed a representation to the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for law and justice. Through their interaction with the various political leaders, the Petitioners were convinced that it is futile to expect the political parties to take any meaningful initiative for judicial reforms, nay, the abolition of the collegium. The reasons were obvious. The questionable practice of PIL, which is contrary to elementary principles of jurisprudence, has clothed the court with enormous power and it is challenging for the executive/political parties to question the usurpation of power of the executive by the judiciary, nay, in any way displease the judiciary.
37. The Petitioner no.1 and others concerned of judicial reforms, therefore, felt it only appropriate to seek correction of the grave error by legal means. They accordingly, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 once again.
38. The petition which the Petitioner no. 1 and others had filed after much struggle with the registry was numbered as W.P (c) no. 1005 of 2022. The matter was mentioned before the Hon’ble Chief Justice on a number of occasions, namely, on 14.11.2022, 18.4.2023, 8.12.2023, 9.1.2024 and the Hon’ble Chief Justice was pleased to repeatedly reassure the Petitioner that the case will be listed. What the Hon’ble Chief Justice stated in open court was reported widely. However, the petition was never listed.
39. To the shock and utter dismay of the Petitioners, they came to know that the Respondent no. 5, Registrar dismissed the said writ petition, namely, W.P (c) no. 1005/2022 by his order dated 24.4.2024, few days after the matter was mentioned by Petitioner no. 1 before the Hon’ble Chief Justice and the Hon’ble Chief Justice had agreed to list the matter. If the Petitioner no.1’s memory serves him right, the Registrar was present in court when the matter was mentioned.
40. The Petitioners no. 1 and 2 are senior lawyers who have been practicing for more than 4 decades. The Registrar dismissing a writ petition which was numbered after the defects being cured to them was unheard of and something which they found difficult to believe. The Registry is a mere facilitator, a servant and aid of justice. Its function is purely ministerial. It has no jurisdiction whatsoever to decide any substantial question of law, not even any question of fact or evidence. The Registrar who was privy to the fact that the writ petition seeking abolition of the collegium, restoration of the NJAC, nay, an open and transparent system of appointment of judges, was mentioned before the Hon’ble Chief Justice several times between 2022 to 2024, dared to de-register the writ petition, that too, entirely behind the back of the Petitioners, without notice to them and keeping them in darkness, and to dismiss it. His action, on the face of it scan only be presumed to be an action entirely of his volition, though that is not entirely plausible.
41. Once a petition is registered and assigned a final registration number, the Registry’s job comes to an end. The Registry is a functus offio. The Court alone has the jurisdiction to deal with the same. No judicial proceedings can be conducted in chambers/in camera, except those which cannot be conducted owing to the sensitivity of the matter. The Registrar also forgot that he is not a judge, but an officer invested of ministerial function.
42. Respondent no.5, Registrar, failed to notice that no judicial business can be transacted in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner no. 1 mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice on 18.4.2024. On 24.4.2024 he received an email of the order from the Registrar, de-registering and dismissing his case. The Registrar in his order assumed to himself the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India and held behind the back of the Petitioners that W.P (c) no. 1005 of 2022 is barred by res judicata.
43. The Registrar, it appears, has no idea that the doctrine of cause of action estoppel, nay, res judicata is applicable only to adjudication involving question of fact between the same parties, based on the same evidence. He seems to have no idea that there is no estoppel against law and that the doctrine of res judicata has no application. He failed to notice that even the parties to the NJAC review petition and the W.P (c) no. 1005 of 2022 are different. The doctrine of res judicata has no application where the parties are different, the cause of action is different.
44. The learned Registrar in his impugned order has observed that the NJAC Judgement is a judgement in rem (as against the whole world in a loose sense) implying that such a judgement would bind even persons who are not parties to the same. The learned Registrar seems to have no clear idea of the concept of judgment in rem. A judgement in rem does not mean that a court can bind by its judgement and adversely affect the rights of persons who were not parties before it, in violation of the principles of natural justice. It only means that, third parties can take advantage of the declaration of status or title of a judgment in rem, and not otherwise. No person can be adversely affected by a judgment of which he is not a party. No court has the power to bind a person who is not before it, by its judgement. This principle is known by the doctrine of Res inter alios.
45. To further elaborate, in a case between a husband and wife, where divorce is granted, it is a judgement in rem. The status of parties as husband and wife has come to an end and third parties can enter into a valid marriage, taking advantage of the change of their status by virtue of the judgement. Where, however divorce is rejected, it is a judgement in personam. The Ld. Registrar is under the misconception that judgement in rem is a doctrine where a court is empowered to pass a judgement adversely affecting the rights of persons who are not before it. His finding in para. 7 of his order that NJAC Judgement being a judgement in rem would bind the whole world, arises out of this misconception. The NJAC judgment is one rendered behind the back of the Petitioners, in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is rendered null and void ab initio, and does not bind the Petitioners, nay, the citizens of the country who were not parties to it.
46. The Registrar has taken upon himself to comment on the bonafides of the Petitioner without any affording any reason and entirely behind their back. The Registrar’s observation that “it appears that the present petition has been filed in order to over-reach the principles of settled law or with some ulterior motive”, made entirely behind the Petitioner’s back, calls to question, the Registrar’s own motives in de-registering and dismissing the in a hushed manner, without notice to the Petitioners and without hearing them. To the Petitioners’ knowledge, W.P (c) no. 1005 of 2022 is the only petition which has ever been de-registered after being finally numbered and the Hon’ble Chief Justice has agreed to list the matter, not once but several times.
47. The Registrar has invoked Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules in de-registering W.P (c) no. 1005 of 2022 and dismissing it behind the back of the Petitioners. The Rule is extracted for convenience as infra.
Order XV Rule 5- The Registrar may refuse to receive a petition on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause or is frivolous or contains scandalous matter, but the petitioner may within fifteen days of the making of such order, appeal by way of motion, from such refusal to the Court.
48. The Registrar found W.P (c) no. 1005 of 2022 which involved substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the constitution to be a “waste of judicial time and energy”. In 1981, a 7-judge bench held that the Government has primacy in the appointment of judges and that the opinion of the Chief Justice of India is not binding. It was undoubtedly the law declared by the Supreme Court in terms of Article 141.
49. However, even before the ink was dry, the correctness of the said judgment was questioned. And a bench of 3-judges in Subhas Sharma v. Union of India 1991 Supp (1) SCC 574 doubted its correctness and the matter was referred to a bench of 9 judges, which led to the judgment in the Judges-2 case. Law is infinite. There is no finality of law. that is the meaning of the concept that there is no estoppel against law. Concept of estoppel is only applicable to adjudication on facts, res judicata. The exercise of the Petitioners for the correction of the NJAC case, a great error, was dismissed by the Registrar at the threshold having been found to be “contrary to public interest”, proving once again that only the petitions by a select few which support the current inequitable system alone see the light of day.
50. Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules is unconstitutional, and void and it confers uncanalised and arbitrary power on the Registrar. The way the Registrar has exercised his power, in itself is the proof of how calamitous and dangerous the said rule is. The Rule as understood by the Registrar confers judicial powers upon him, rendering Article 32 itself redundant, for the Registrar can, at his sweet will, decline the jurisdiction under Article 32, without affording any reason and behind the back of the parties. The said rule is liable to be struck down as unconstitutional. In the worst scenario the principles of natural justice and fair hearing are liable to be read into the same.
51. Against the order of the Registrar dated 24.4.2024, the Petitioner preferred a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, and the same is pending. A copy of the said appeal is produced as Annexure “P- 5”. The appeal contains W.P (c) no. 1005 of 2022 and all its annexures. The said writ petition is liable to be read as part of the instant petition. The grounds taken therein are also liable to be treated as the grounds in the instant writ petition as well. The documents attached therewith, particularly the progeny chart, the representations to the Hon’ble Prime Minister, the Parliamentary Committee on Law and Justice be treated as annexures to the instant petition. The grounds taken in Civil Misc Appeal no. 25307 OF 2024 may also be treated as grounds for the instant writ petition.
GROUNDS
The grounds of the writ petition has been elaborated in the statement of facts, particularly, paragraphs 1 to 41. To repeat the same would amount to rendering the instant petition unduly voluminous.
a) The W.P no. 1005 of 2022 is annexed with the instant writ petition. The said writ petition and the grounds taken therein may be treated as grounds in the instant writ petition. It is not repeated to keep the instant petition brief.
b) Suffice to say that, the Constitution 99th Amendment Act of 2014 and the NJAC Act of 2014 are constitutional and the judgment of this Court dated 16.10.2015 holding them as unconstitutional is null and void. The Petitioners were not parties to the Writ petition PIL no. 13 of 2015 instituted by SCOARA which led to the judgment in the NJAC case. The Petitioners not being parties to the case, are not bound by the same. They cannot even file a review, except with the leave of the court, being third parties. Filing of a review petition would be an exercise in futility because all review petitions invariably are dismissed in chambers. The statement by the Law Minister in Parliament indicates that between 2010-2020, out of 19802, only 92 review petitions were allowed. The rest were all dismissed in chambers. All 2155 civil curative petitions, without exception, were dismissed in chambers. Article 137 which provides for a review is practically a dead letter.
c) The only means to undo the grave error in the NJAC case is the instant petition under Article 32. This petition is maintainable because there is no estoppel against law. The judgment in the review petition filed by the NLC will not stand in the way of the present Petitioners. This Court, without any hesitation revisited the judgement in the Judges-1 case holding that the said judgment laid down an erroneous proposition of law. A 7-judge bench of this Court in A.R Antulay’s case held that its earlier judgment by a 5judge bench was an error on a pure question of law, revisited it and set aside the earlier judgement. The judgement in the NJAC case is liable to be revisited on the same grounds that this Court was pleased to revisit its judgment in the Judges-1 case and in A.R Antulay’s case.
PRAYER
a) To declare that Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, is ultra vires and unconstitutional inasmuch as it literally obliterates Article 32 of the Constitution by vesting unlimited and uncanonised power on the Registrar of the Supreme Court to deny registration of a petition instituted under Article 32 or Article 136 or any other relevant provision of the Constitution;
b) To declare that the order dated 24.4.2024 of the Registrar (J-A) in Writ Petition (c) no. 1005 of 2022 de-registering the petition and dismissing the same as null and void, without jurisdiction, in violation of the principles of natural justice, as also to issue a consequential writ in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the same;
c) to declare that there is no estoppel against law, that the doctrine of res judicata and issue estoppel only apply to adjudication of disputed facts or evidence, that the judgment in the NJAC case did not involve any adjudication on disputed questions of fact or evidence, and therefore, the order in the Review Petition filed by the NLC which came to be dismissed in chambers constitute no estoppel and that the finding of the Registrar that W.P (c) no. 1005 of 2002 is barred by res judicata is wholly erroneous and contrary to the elementary principles of jurisprudence and rendered in ignorance of law;
d) To declare that the collegium system of appointment of judges has become a synonym for nepotism and favoritism, nay, has resulted in the denial of fair opportunity in the selection and appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts to the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 8, who are practicing lawyers and thousands of others who are equally, if not, more deserving, but less privileged, lest their fundamental right for equal opportunity for being considered for such appointments is not deprived;
e) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent No. 4, nay, the Union Government to consider the representations of the Petitioners seeking such legislative and executive action so as to ensure an open and transparent system of appointment of judges, nay, by notifying vacancies, inviting applications from all eligible and desirous;
f) To direct the collegium of the Supreme Court of India and the Collegiums of the High Courts to notify the vacancies in the office of the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts and invite applications from all eligible and desirous and select the most deserving, ideally allowing the public at large to offer objections, if any;
g) To declare that the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, and the NJAC Act are the will of the people on a matter which falls in the exclusive province of legislative and executive policy, namely, the appointment and transfer of the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, that the same is not justiciable and that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the SCAORA v. Union of India, (2016) 5 SCC 1, popularly known as the NJAC case, is one rendered void ab initio, non est, still born, one which never ever existed in the eyes of law;
h) To declare that even assuming, without conceding in the least, that the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, and the NJAC Act are amenable to judicial review, nay, is justiciable, then also the judgment of the Supreme Court in the NJAC case will not amount to repeal of the said Acts and the same continue to be in the statute book and the judgment declaring the said Acts to be unconstitutional will be not be binding even the parties of the NJAC Case as res-judicata since there is no estoppel or res judicata against law;
i) To declare that to prevent the mischief as in the NJAC case, where an association under the guise of representing the public at large secures even a legislation of such immense public utility, nay, the will of the people like the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, and the NJAC Act, being declared as unconstitutional without there being any opportunity for the public at large to partake in the case, it is imperative to mandate every PIL litigant to give notice to the public at large, nay to follow a procedure akin to representative suits under Order 1 Rule 8 (2) of the CPC or of a class action as contemplated under Section 245 of the Companies
Act;
j) To declare that the review petitions of the Petitioners No. 1 & 2 in challenge of the judgment in the NJAC case is liable to be restored to file and heard in the open court as the contentions raised by the Petitioners as to the very maintainability of the PIL filed by SCAORA, and to observe the requirements to followed in a representative suit or class action proceedings, was not recorded or discussed at all and there was no decision on the Petitioners’ case on its merits at all;
k) To grant such other and further writs, orders or directions which this Hon’ble court may be pleased to grant in the interest of justice and the circumstances of the case;
“AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL, AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY”
DRAWN BY: FILED BY: PARTY IN PERSON
MATHEWS J NEDUMPARA
DRAWN ON:
FILED ON:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. __ OF 2022
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
IN THE MATTER OF:
SHRI MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & 9 ORS. … PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND ORS.
…RESPONDENTS
A F F I D A V IT
I, Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara, aged 65 years, Petitioner No.1 (Party in Person) and behalf of others Petitioner no. 2 to 10 , having office at 101, 1st Floor, Gundecha Chambers, Nagindas Master road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:-
1. I am the Petitioner No.1 and on behalf of others Petitioners no. 2 to 10 in the above Writ Petition and am conversant with the facts of the case and I am competent to swear this affidavit. I do so on my own behalf and on behalf of the Petitioners.
2. I state that I have read and understood the contents of the Synopsis and List of Dates at Pages _ to __ and contents of Para _to_ at pages __to ___ of the Writ Petition and state that the facts mentioned therein are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief as also as derived from the records of the case. I say that the facts and circumstances stated in the Writ Petition are true and correct.
3. That the Annexures produced along with the Writ Petition are true copies of their respective originals.
4. That the averments in para 1 to 3 of this affidavit are true and correct to best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I the above named deponent affirms that the contents of Para _ to __- of this Affidavit are true and correct to best of my knowledge and belief and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
Verified at New Delhi on this the __ day of September 2024.
DEPONENT PARTY IN PERSON
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.___ OF 2024
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
IN THE MATTER OF:
SHRI MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & 9 ORS. ….PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND ORS.
…RESPONDENTS
MEMO OF APPEARANCE
To,
The Registrar
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi.
Sir,
Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Petitioner Person no.1 in the above mentioned Petition.
Yours faithfully,
MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA
Advocate
Petitioner in person no. 1
Indian, Adult having address at 12-F, Harbour Heights, Colaba Causeway, Mumbai – 400 005.
Place:
Date : 5.9.2024
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.___ OF 2024
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
IN THE MATTER OF:
SHRI MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & 9 ORS. ….PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND ORS.
…RESPONDENTS
MEMO OF APPEARANCE
To,
The Registrar
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi.
Sir,
Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Petitioner Person no. 3 in the above mentioned Petition.
Yours faithfully,
DR. CHITTOOR RAJAMANNAR
ADVOCATE
Petitioner in Person No 2
Indian, Adult residing at Kizhakkekalappurackal House, Vengalloor, P.O Kumaramangalam Village, Thodupuzha Taluk, Idukki , District, Kerala – 685608
Place :
Date : 5.9.2024
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.___ OF 2024
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
IN THE MATTER OF:
SHRI MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & 9 ORS. ….PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND ORS.
…RESPONDENTS
MEMO OF APPEARANCE
To,
The Registrar
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi.
Sir,
Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Petitioner Person no. 3 in the above mentioned Petition.
Yours faithfully,
ROHINI AMIN
Advocate,
Petitioner in person no. 3
B-705, Nirman Apartments, R.J Marg, Pump House, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400 093
Place :
Date : 5.9.2024
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.___ OF 2024
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
IN THE MATTER OF:
SHRI MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & 9 ORS. ….PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND ORS.
…RESPONDENTS
MEMO OF APPEARANCE
To,
The Registrar
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi.
Sir,
Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Petitioner Person no.4 in the above mentioned Petition.
Yours faithfully,
MARIA NEDUMPARA
Advocate
Petitioner in Person no. 4
Indian, Adult, residing at12-F, Harbour Heights, Colaba Causeway, Mumbai – 400 005
Place :
Date : 5.9.2024
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.___ OF 2024
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
IN THE MATTER OF:
SHRI MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & 9 ORS. ….PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND ORS.
…RESPONDENTS
MEMO OF APPEARANCE
To,
The Registrar
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi.
Sir,
Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Petitioner Person no.4 in the above mentioned Petition.
Yours faithfully,
HEMALI KURNE,
Advocate
Petitioner in Person no. 5
Indian, Adult, residing at 504, 28-A wing, Shubhshagun Building, Rishikesh CHS Ltd., Sector – 34, Mansarovar, Navi Mumbai – 410209
Place :
Date : 5.9.2024
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.___ OF 2024
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
IN THE MATTER OF:
SHRI MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & 9 ORS. ….PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND ORS.
…RESPONDENTS
MEMO OF APPEARANCE
To,
The Registrar
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi.
Sir,
Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Petitioner Person no.4 in the above mentioned Petition.
Yours faithfully,
RAJESH ADREKAR
Advocate
Petitioner in Person no.6
Indian , Adult, residing at 401, D-14, Yogi Vardhan CHS, Yogi Nagar Road, Yogi Nagar, Borivili West, Mumbai-400092, Maharashtra
Place :
Date : 5.9.2024
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.___ OF 2024
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
IN THE MATTER OF:
SHRI MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & 9 ORS. ….PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND ORS.
…RESPONDENTS
MEMO OF APPEARANCE
To,
The Registrar
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi.
Sir,
Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Petitioner Person no.4 in the above mentioned Petition.
Yours faithfully,
AMIT KAKRI
Advocate
Petitioner in person no.6
Adult, residing at 205 Dosti Carnation, Dosti Acres, Wadala East, Mumbai – 400037
Place :
Date : 5.9.2024
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.___ OF 2024
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
IN THE MATTER OF:
SHRI MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & 9 ORS. ….PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND ORS.
…RESPONDENTS
MEMO OF APPEARANCE
To,
The Registrar
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi.
Sir,
Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Petitioner Person no.1 in the above mentioned Petition.
Yours faithfully,
MOHAMMED YOUSUF KHAN Advocate
Petitioner in Person no. 8
Indian, Adult , residing at
951, Kohinoor City Phase 1, Kirol Road, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400070
Place :
Date : 5.9.2024
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.___ OF 2024
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
IN THE MATTER OF:
SHRI MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & 9 ORS. ….PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND ORS.
…RESPONDENTS
MEMO OF APPEARANCE
To,
The Registrar
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi.
Sir,
Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Petitioner Person no.1 in the above mentioned Petition.
Yours faithfully,
MANISHA NIMESH MEHTA
Chartered Accountant
Petitioner in Person no. 8
Indian, Adult, residing at 1905, Rosella, Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar, Mumbai – 400075, Maharashtra
Place :
Date : 5.9.2024
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.___ OF 2024
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
IN THE MATTER OF:
SHRI MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & 9 ORS. ….PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND ORS.
…RESPONDENTS
MEMO OF APPEARANCE
To,
The Registrar
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi.