Read Time: 07 minutes

Plea states that the Petitioner organization National Lawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Reforms and Transparency, consists of first generation lawyers, the sons and daughters of taxi drivers, farmers, fishermen, rickshaw pullers, daily wagers, teachers et al, "the underdogs", with its headquarters in Mumbai.

A review petition in Supreme Court seeks declaration of the judgment setting up the collegium system of appointing judges in 1993 [Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association And Anr. v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441] as void.

The plea drawn by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara is expected to be filed in the Supreme Court shortly.

The Review Petitioners, National Lawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Reforms and Transparency, represented by its General Secretary, Mrs. Rohini Amin & Ors. more specifically seek a declaration that the judgment, popularly known as the Judges-2 case is unconstitutional and void ab initio inasmuch as it amounts to rewriting of the Constitution, for which the Supreme Court has no power.

Plea asserts that the Constitution and the separation of powers envisaged there under is sacrosanct, however, the Petitioners certainly consider that the political leadership, the executive Government of the day, will always try to appoint their favourites as Judges. 

"The Government of Indira Gandhi was the classic example, though the Government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh could be an exception. The solution to the threat of the executive Government appointing its favourites as Judges, assuming it has reached a gigantic proportion, was appropriate legislation providing for an independent Judicial Appointment Commission"
- Plea in SC

It is the case of the petitioners that in the original proceedings, the petitioners "remained unheard", and that no notice were issued in the original proceedings, adding that "only celebrated lawyers" were heard "to the cheer of their heart".

"A fair notice and hearing was denied to the petitioners and the petitioners believe that the general perception, so well rooted, that only celebrated Lawyers alone are heard to the cheer of their heart is true. Apart from some celebrated senior advocates, nobody was heard and in the deliberance on the merits of the case and there is no whisper whatsoever about the contentions of ordinary lawyers and the common people whom they represented, at all, not even a word."
- Excerpt of plea

The petitioners have justified their locus in filing the plea as one which is "inter pares", highlighting that the judgment passed is not in personam, but in rem, which binds the whole world, and the generations to come, to determine their rights and legal remedies, they cannot be denied the first principle of natural justice, ‘Audi alteram partem’.

It is stated that the Petitioners are constrained to institute the review since the Union of India failed to file an application for review of the judgment of the Nine-Judge Constitution Bench in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record v. Union of India, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 441 within the time prescribed by law.

"Without meaning any disrespect to the learned Attorney Generals referred to above and the battery of senior lawyers engaged by the various State Governments, in all probability at great cost to the public exchequer, they failed to notice the subtle but real distinctions between the concepts of res judicata, stare decisis and review," the plea states.

Case Title: Review Petitioners National Lawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Reforms and Transparency, represented by its General Secretary, Mrs. Rohini Amin & Ors
In the matter of The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and anr Vs. Union of India.