Almost 10 days after a Supreme Court bench ordered the Centre to inform it about the steps taken to finalise the Memorandum of Procedure(MoP) on appointment of judges, another bench on Wednesday “recalled” the decision and closed the case finding no "necessity" to determine the issue in a judicial proceeding.
This is the latest in the chain of instances where the Supreme Court has overruled its own decision. On Wednesday, a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices AK Sikri and Amitava Roy suo moto sat over an order passed by another bench of Justices AK Goel and UU lalit on October 27, 2017. Chief Justice of India is the master of the roster for assigning matters to judges and in this way listed the said petition before a three-judge bench headed by him. Incidentally, the CJI recently reviewed another decision by Justices Goel and lalit, terming their order preventing immediate arrest in dowry harassment cases to be "anti-women".
Taking up the case, the CJI said, “There is no necessity to enter into such things after a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in December 2015 has decided on the issue of finalizing MoP. These are not matters to be taken up on the judicial side."
Recalling the October-27 order, the bench said, “We are of the considered opinion that as far as the other prayers are concerned, there was no necessity or need to proceed with the same, more so, in view of the Constitution Bench judgments."
The October 27 order was passed on a petition by a lawyer RP luthra seeking withdrawal of recommendations by the SC Collegium as his candidature was not considered.
As his case stood already dismissed by the two-judge bench, on Wednesday too he was denied hearing. There was a heated exchange as the petitioner in raised voice insisted on being heard while the judges warned him from crossing the line.
Noting that the MoP remained in limbo for a year and 10 months, the 2-judge bench sought to resolve the imbroglio and fixed November 14 as the date to hear out Centre, Attorney General and amicus curiae, senior advocate KV Vishwanathan.
The amicus told the CJI-headed bench that concern expressed over MoP by the two judges was genuine as vacancy position in higher judiciary was shocking. The CJI refused to hear Vishwanathan and told him instead not to raise these issues in this petition.