Supreme Court’s credibility sky high, can’t be eroded by statements of individuals: HC

Mumbai The credibility of the Supreme Court of India is sky high and cannot be eroded or impinged by the statements of individuals, the Bombay high court has observed in its detailed order

Mumbai The credibility of the Supreme Court of India is sky high and cannot be eroded or impinged by the statements of individuals, the Bombay high court has observed in its detailed order.

New Delhi, India - Jan. 28, 2020: A view of Supreme court, in New Delhi, India, on Tuesday, January 28, 2020. (Photo by Amal KS / Hindustan Times) (Amal KS/HT PHOTO)

The high court made this observation while dismissing a public interest litigation that sought a declaration that the vice president of India and the union law minister had disqualified themselves from holding the constitutional posts by making statements, which according to the petitioner body, defiled the status of the Supreme Court in the eyes of the public.

The order, however, stated that Constitution of India is supreme and sacrosanct and every citizen of India, including persons holding constitutional posts, are bound by it and are expected to abide by the constitutional values and respect it too.

The division bench of acting chief justice SV Gangapurwala and justice SV Marne had heard and dismissed the PIL filed by Bombay Lawyers Association (BLA) on February 9. In its detailed order, which was uploaded on Tuesday, the bench noted, “Considering the totality of the factual matrix, we do not find it a fit case to invoke our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in entertaining the PIL. The PIL, as such, is dismissed.”

The BLA, through its chairperson advocate Ahmed Abdi, had submitted that the public utterances by Vice President of India Jagdeep Dhankhar and Union law minister Kiren Rijiju had violated their oaths of office.

The PIL claimed that Rijiju has repeatedly questioned the Collegium system while Dhankhar raised the basic structure doctrine on the powers of the judiciary vis-a-vis the legislature and called the striking down of the NJAC Act a severe compromise of Parliamentary sovereignty.

Abdi submitted that the remarks were not only derogatory to the Constitution but also affected public at large and would lead to anarchy. He added that the conduct of Dhankhar and Rijiju lowered the prestige of the Supreme Court in public.

However, additional solicitor general (ASG) Anil Singh opposed the PIL and referred to some of the statements made by Respondent Nos.1 (Dhankhar) and 2 (Rijiju), wherein it was said that “the government has never undermined the authority of the judiciary and its independence will always remain untouched and promoted and they respect the ideals of the Constitution. Respondent No.1 (Dhankhar) has also made a statement that he has highest respect for the judiciary and is committed to the Constitution of India.”

Singh had submitted that the constitutional authorities cannot be removed in the manner as suggested by the petitioner and hence, the PIL should be dismissed.