“Irrational, incongruous and bordering on facetiousness”:Petition dismissed challenging collegium recommendations, 1st, 2nd & 3rd Judges cases and basic structure doctrine 

Kerala High Court: A Division Bench comprising of P.R. Ramachandra Menon and Devan Ramachandran, JJ. seized of a rather bewildering appeal primarily challenging collegium recommendations, dismissed the same for being unsubstantiated with any document or evidence.

The present writ appeal was filed challenging the order dismissing appellant’s writ petition filed challenging the recommendation for elevation of certain practicing advocates as judges of this Court for reason of their proximity to some Judges, former Judges and the Advocate General. The appellant contended that the said collegium recommendations would infringe their fundamental rights.

Among the many baffling averments, the petitioner contended that the collegium system is illegal; that the judgments of Supreme Court in First, Second and Third Judges cases do not lay down the correct law and were thus being unworthy of being followed as precedents; that the basic structure theory, as postulated by the Apex Court, was a myth; and that Public Interest Litigation was being now misused. 

Baffled to see the pleadings and averments on record, the Court noted that the appellant’s pleadings were unsubstantiated by any evidence or details and as such it was an attempt to cast aspersions on the Collegium of Judges. 

Thus, the appeal was dismissed and exemplary costs were imposed on the appellant for approaching the Court asserting eligibility to be appointed as a Judge of a High Court, without even disclosing the rudimentary details as to when he was enrolled or his standing at the Bar.[C.J. Joveson v. Chief Justice of Kerala High Court, 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 4947,decided on 16-11-2018]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.