In The Supreme Court of India Civil Original Jurisdiction Review Petition (Civil) No. ___ of 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ___ OF 2018
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 1303 OF 1987

[Seeking review of the judgment dated 06/10/1993 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) 1303 of 1987 reported as Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association And Anr. v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441]

National Lawyers’ Campaign for
Judicial Reforms and Transparency,
represented by its
Secretary, A.C.Philip & Ors REVIEW PETITIONERS IN THE MATTER OF:
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record
Association and anr . …..PETITIONERS
VERSUS

The Union of India …..RESPONDENT
WITH
IA.NO. OF 2018
Application seeking a declaration that there is no delay
in filing the Review Petition/Condonation of delay.
WITH
IA.NO. OF 2018
Application for permission to file the review petition as party in person.
WITH
IA.NO. OF 2018
Application for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order dated 06/10/1993in WP(C) No.1303/1987
WITH
IA.NO. OF 2018
Application for permission to engage Mr.Mathews J. Nedumpara as arguing Counsel.

P A P E R – B O O K
[FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE]

FILED BY::
[National Lawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Reforms and Transparency, represented by its Secretary, A.C.Philip and Others] Petitioners-in-person
Room No. 304, 58/64,Hari Chambers, 3rd Floor, S B S Marg,Opp Old Custom House,Fort, Mumbai 400 023
Mob.09820435428, 9920477447
New Delhi,
Filed on :__/09/2018
Re-Filed on :__/09/ 2018

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SL.NO. DATE OF RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PAGE(S)

1. ORDER DATED
2. ORDER DATED
3. ORDER DATED
4. ORDER DATED
5. ORDER DATED
6. ORDER DATED
7. ORDER DATED
8. ORDER DATED
9. ORDER DATED
10. ORDER DATED
11. ORDER DATED
12. ORDER DATED
13. ORDER DATED
14. ORDER DATED
15. ORDER DATED
16. ORDER DATED
17. ORDER DATED
18. ORDER DATED
19. ORDER DATED

INDEX

Sl. No. Particulars Page Nos.
1. Listing Proforma A1-A2
2. Office report on limitation B
3. Synopsis with dates C-G
4. Review Petition with affidavit 1-68
5. Appendix.
I- Article 137 & 145 of The Constitution of India 69-70
II- Constitution(99TH Amendment) Act,2014 71-73
III- National Judicial Appointments Commission Act,2014 74-78
IV- Extract of resolution 79
6. Annexure P-1:-
A copy of the agenda/objectives of the NLC. 80
7. Annexure P-2:-
A copy of the judgment and order dated 30th December, 2016 in WP(C) No.20/2018(Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 43118 OF 2016). 81-93
8. IA.NO……………..OF 2018
Application seeking a declaration that there is no delay in filing the Review Petition/ Condonation of delay. 94-
9. IA.NO……………..OF 2018
Application for permission to file the review petition as party in person.

10. IA.NO……………..OF 2018
Application for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order dated 06/10/1993in WP(C) No.1303/1987
11. IA.NO……………..OF 2018
Application for permission to engage Mr.Mathews J. Nedumpara as arguing Counsel.

PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING
SECTION –X
The case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box):

 Central Act : (Title) Constitution of India
Constitution(99TH Amendment) Act,2014
National Judicial Appointments Commission Act,2014
 Section: Art. 32 of 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: NA
 Impugned Final Order/Decree : NA
 High Court: (Name): Na
 Names of Judges: NA

Tribunal/Authority: Nil
 Nature of matter:
□Civil □Criminal

2. (a) Petitioner/appellant No.1 : National Lawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms, represented by its Secretary, A.C.Philip
b) e-mail ID: nlcfjtar@gmail.com , pradeeparingada@gmail.com
(c) Mobile phone number: 9820535428
3, (a)Respondent No.1: The Union of India

(b) e-mail ID: NIL
(c) Mobile phone number: NA

4. (a) Main category classification: 24 (Appointments etc. of Constitutional Functionaries)
(b) Sub classification: 2407(Others)
5. Not to be listed before: NA
6. Similar/Pending matter: NA
7. Criminal Matters: NA
(a) Whether accused/convict has surrendered: Yes No
(b) FIR No.NA Date: NA
(c) Police Station: NA
(d) Sentence Awarded: NIL
(e) Sentence Undergone: nil
8. Land Acquisition Matters: Na
(a) Date of Section 4notification: Na

(b) Date of Section 6 notification: NA
(c) Date of Section 17 notification: NA
9. Tax Matters: State the tax effect: NA
10. Special Category (first petitioner/appellant only): NA
Senior citizen 65 years SC/ST Woman/child Disabled Legal Aid case/In custody
11. Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident Claim matters): NA
12. Decided cases with citation: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India and Others (JT 2015 (10) SC 1), 2015(5)GLT(SC)12,2015(11)SCALE1.
Date: ___th September,2018 Party in Person petitioner(s)/appellant(s)
____________
aminrohini@gmail.com

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ___ OF 2018
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 1303 OF 1987
[Seeking review of the judgment dated 06/10/1993 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) 1303 of 1987 reported as Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association And Anr. v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441]

IN THE MATTER OF
1. National Lawyers’ Campaign For
Judicial Transparency and Reforms,
represented by its
Secretary A.C.Philip,
having its registered office at:
304, Hari Chambers,
3rd Floor, 54/68 SBS Marg,
Near Old Custom House,
Fort Mumbai- 400 023 … REVIEW PETITIONER NO.1

2. Mathews J. Nedumpara,
Adult, Indian Inhabitant,
residing at Harbour Heights,
“W” Wing, 12-F, 12th Floor,
Sassoon Docks, Colaba,
Mumbai-400 005. … REVIEW PETITIONER NO.2

3. A.C.Philip,
Advocate,
Aringada House,
Anachal, Karumalloor P.O,
Ernakulam District,
Kerala State-683 501. … REVIEW PETITIONER NO.3

4. Amritpal Singh Khalsa,
201/202, Pleasure Park,
Opp.Pintopark, OT Section,
Ulhasnagar-421003,
Dist.Thane, Maharashtra. … REVIEW PETITIONER NO.4

5. _________,
_________ … REVIEW PETITIONER NO.5

Versus

1. The Union of India,
represented by the Secretary in the
Ministry of Law and Justice,
4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-110 001. … RESPONDENT NO.1

2. The Supreme Court Advocates
on Record Association,
Supreme Court of India,
Tilak Marg, New Delhi 110 001. …RESPONDENT NO.2

REVIEW PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 13(2) AND 137 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH ORDER-XLVII OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES,2013, SEEKING REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 06/10/1993 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION.

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONERS ABOVE NAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. The 1st Petitioner is an organization of the 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. The 2nd Petitioner is a citizen of India, is a lawyer by profession, enrolled with the Bar Council of Kerala in 1984, and has been in active practice since then. He is President of the 1st Petitioner. Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are lawyers and office-bearers of the 1st Petitioner. Petitioner Nos.____ are _____.
2. The legal status of the Respondents is manifest from the very cause title itself and, therefore, it is unnecessary to elaborate it. Suffice to say, in the nature of the reliefs sought for in the instant Writ Petition, they are necessary, nay, proper, nay, formal parties who are required to be arraigned.

3. The Petitioners are constrained to institute the instant review petition invoking Article 13(2) and 137 of the Constitution read with Order-XLVII Of The Supreme Court Rules,2013, 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; so too because the then learned Advocate General, for reasons difficult to be fathomed, in the course of the hearing of the Special Reference 1 of 1998, AIR 1999 SC 1, popularly known as the Judges-2 and Judges-3 cases, respectively, made it expressly clear that the Government of India is not seeking a review of the judgment in Judges-2 case; so too since the Attorney General in 2015, instead of filing an application under Article 13(2) and 137 of the Constitution read with Order-XLVII Of The Supreme Court Rules,2013, sought a review of the Judges-2 case by way of a motion in the NJAC Case (2018) 5 SCC 1.

4. 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 doctrine of res judicata means that a judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction acting within its jurisdiction, following the principles of natural justice and in accordance with the express statutory provisions, howsoever erroneous it could be, is final and binding between the parties. In other words, a judgment in a case between A and B will bind only A and B only, subjected to be corrected by an appeal or revision, if the statute provides for one, and not otherwise. The judgment in a case between A and B will not bind C and D who are not parties thereto. The doctrine of stare decisis would mean that if in a case between A and B the Court has evolved a principle for the resolution of a controversy before it, for which no principle/precedent was available, such principle evolved for the first time, which is the reason for the decision, the reason alone will apply as a guideline in a future case between C and D or E and F who are not parties to the case between A and B so far as subordinate Courts before which the case between C and D or E and F is placed for determination. The concept of review has application only where the judgment between A and B constituted no res judicata because the judgment so rendered was void ab initio, it being vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record. The concepts of res judicata and stare decisis belong to the province of substantive law. On the contrary, the doctrine of review belongs to adjectival law. Review is only a procedure and the relief granted by recourse to review is correction of a judgment which is not merely erroneous but void and thus never ever existed in the eye of law. The subtle distinctions between the aforesaid three concepts have been failed to be taken notice of by this Hon’ble Court on more than one occasion. The judgment of the Five-Judge Constitution Bench in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388, which created a new jurisprudence called “curative petition”, is yet another instance where this Hon’ble Court failed to notice the distinction between the aforesaid three concepts. In Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (supra) the issue before the Court was how to do justice to a litigant before it who had lost all options to rectify the injustice to which he was subjected to on account of erroneous decisions resulting from the rejection even of his review petition, often in chambers, leaving no procedure for correction open to him. But the distinction between the concept of res judicata and stare decisis happened to be lost sight of and the said judgment literally meant all about the doctrine of stare decisis, mainly the need to revisit precedents.

5. In Judges-2 case; so too in Hurra v. Hurra and the NJAC cases, for reasons difficult to be fathomed, the most important plea raised was review of the judgment which constitutes to be a stare decisis, a precedent. In S.P. Gupta’s case, popularly known as the First Judges case, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution was invoked seeking a writ of mandamus and other directions. In the said case, the question as to the meaning of the word “consultation” with the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India (CJI) cropped up for consideration of the Seven-Judge Bench. The Court held that “consultation” within the meaning of Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution does not mean “concurrence” and consultation means effective and meaningful consultation alone and nothing more. The Court in its 4:3 verdict refused to read the word “consultation” with the CJI as “concurrence”. In other words, the said judgment reaffirmed the letter and spirit of the Constitution that the executive Government in consultation with the CJI shall appoint Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. Even before the ink of the judgment in S.P. Gupta’s case dried, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 was invoked on the ground that the Government, ignoring merit, appointed Judges purely out of political considerations. A plea was made before the Court that the judgment in S.P. Gupta in so far as it interpreted the word “consultation” as what the said word literally means and not concurrence is erroneous and the said judgment be reviewed. However, no application for review was instituted invoking Article 13(2) and 137 of the Constitution read with Order-XLVII Of The Supreme Court Rules,2013.

6. The instant Petitioners do not question the bona fides of the nobility of the purpose of those who invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in the light of the then Government appointing ‘Sarkari’ Judges, but the method they adopted, namely, asking the Court itself to amend the Constitution by judicial legislation – a remedy worse than the disease. While asserting that the Constitution and the separation of powers envisaged thereunder is sacrosanct, the Petitioners certainly consider that the political leadership, the executive Government of the day, will always try to appoint their favourites as Judges. In a Cabinet system of Government, not only in India but elsewhere, the real power could be in the hands of a few people led by the Prime Minister and they (the Cabinet) control even the legislature. 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. Shri Dinesh Goswami, the Union Law Minister in the V.P. Singh’s Government in 1989, put forward a suggestion of a National Judicial Appointment Commission, but the elite lawyers in the Supreme Court did not pursue the democratic means to bring about amendment of the Constitution/legislative measures. Instead, they canvassed for judicial legislation. A Nine-Judge Bench of this Hon’ble Court amended Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution and substituted them by judicial legislation in Judges-2 case. In the said Articles, paragraph 485 of the judgment in Judges-2 case, for all practical purposes, stand incorporated. For convenience, the said paragraph is extracted below.

“485. The Framers of the Constitution placed a limitation on the power of Executive in the matter of appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The requirement of prior “consultation” with the superior Judiciary is a logical consequence of having an “independent Judiciary” as basic feature of the Constitution. If the Executive is left to ignore the advice tendered by the Chief Justice of India in the process of consultation, the very purpose and object of providing consultation with the Judicatory is defeated. We have, therefore, no doubt in our mind that the Executive is bound by the advice/recommendation of the Chief Justice of India in the process of consultation under Articles 124(2) and 217(1) of the Constitution.”

7. A litigant institutes a proceeding in a Court of law for adjudication of a dispute. No litigation can be instituted if there is no cause of action or infringement of a right or imposition of an obligation of penalty, actual or apprehended. The job of the Court is to adjudicate the lis. The subordinate Courts adjudicate the lis placed for its determination after ascertaining the facts in controversy by applying the laws as are considered to be appropriate. The superior Courts also do the very same thing. The only difference is that where there is lack of certainty as to the law to be applied and where precedents are conflicting or unclear, the Bench in question may refer the matter to a larger Bench. The larger Bench so constituted answers the question of law referred to it for consideration and leaves adjudication of the lis by the Bench which has referred the question of law to it or may itself decide the issue. But there can be no litigation without an actual controversy involving certain facts; the parties whose rights are aggrieved. The Judges-2 case and probably the NJAC case (Judges-5 case) are the two exceptions in the legal history. In the Judges-2 case, without there being an actual lis for the Court’s adjudication, doubting the correctness of the interpretation of the word ‘consultation’, which the Seven-Judge Bench in Judges-1 case held to not mean ‘concurrence’ of the CJI, but only means ‘consultation’, namely, that the consultee, howsoever highly placed he could be, is still only a consultee and what decision is to be taken, to act or not to act upon the advice tendered, is for the consultor to decide.

8. As aforesaid, a Bench to which a reference is made ordinarily would decide the question of law referred to it and the Bench which has referred the question of law to the larger Bench would decide the facts in controversy, nay, the lis, applying the principles enunciated by the larger Bench on a reference made to it. In Judges-2 case, since there were no issues in controversy, the entire litigation was on a hypothetical basis, without any lis or controversy at all and, therefore, there was no occasion for the original case to be disposed of in terms of the opinion rendered by the larger Bench in the reference. This is so manifest and so simple which even a layman could comprehend. If the Petitioners could go by the judgment in the Judges-2 case, neither Shri Milon Banerjee, the then Attorney General, and nor Shri K. Parasaran, Senior Advocate, nor even the Advocate Generals who represented some of the States, whom the Petitioners hold in the highest of esteem, raised the plea as to whether a Writ Petition, whatever nomenclature it is given, PIL or otherwise, could be instituted without there being any factual controversy; any dispute at all; without there being a person aggrieved; without there being a lis; without the person who has instituted the original Writ Petition not seeking any remedy at all. Could a petition seeking a mere declaration that the finding in Judges-1 case is maintainable or not? The Petitioners beg to submit that no such petition could have been maintained. Unfortunately, nobody raised such a plea.

9. With utmost respect to Shri Milon Banerjee and Shri K. Parasaran the Petitioners beg to submit that they failed to raise the plea that no Writ Petition, no matter what nomenclature is given to it, could be maintained without there being a person aggrieved whose fundamental rights are violated and the violation of the fundamental rights ought to be resulting from certain action at the hands of the party on the opposite side, either actual or apprehended. The then Attorney General and Shri Parasaran failed to raise the plea that the PIL at the hands of SCAORA was not maintainable at all. They also failed to bring to the notice of the Hon’ble Court that the PIL did not mean discovery of any new legal remedies; that Article 32 speak about the five writs, namely, habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari and all these writs could be invoked for enforcement of the fundamental rights of the person who invokes the same and not otherwise. Before the onset of the PIL era, there were these five writs; after the onset of the PIL era, there are no other writs or remedies than the five writs named in Article 32. Shri Milon Banerjee and Shri Parasaran failed to point out that the PIL as envisaged by legendary Justice P.N. Bhagwati in Judges-1 case is for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of a person who on account of his poverty, ignorance, illiteracy and other disadvantages is unable to approach a constitutional Court. They failed to point out that the public law remedy of mandamus or quo warranto still could be invoked in the enforcement of an injury which a citizen or a person has suffered in the eye of law. Even the public remedy of mandamus or quo warranto is for enforcement of a private right recognised by law. They failed to point out that the Attorney General is the sole custodian or public interest and that he alone could approach Court representing the public at large.

10. The judgment in Judges-2 case containing 537 paragraphs and running into 300 pages in (1993) 4 SCC 441 was on a very narrow issue. In Judges-1 case, there was a cause of action; there were actual controversies, infringement of fundamental or legal rights, parties and causes. The question therein was, what is the meaning of the word ‘consultation’ as employed in Articles 124(2) and 217 of the Constitution; whether Justice S.N. Kumar, an Additional Hon’ble High Court Judge, had a right for appointment as a Permanent Judge; so too transfer of Judges could be made without the consent of the Judge concerned, for, Mr. Justice K.B.N. Singh, Chief Justice of the High Court of Patna was transferred as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Madras. The question as to what is the meaning of the word ‘consultation’ employed in the aforesaid Articles was determinative in the adjudication of the disputes. Justice Kumar was an active participant in the lis. Therefore, the question of locus standi of the Petitioners was conceded. Yet Justice Bhagwati, though it was not necessary for the adjudication of the case, felt it appropriate to go into the question of locus standi of Petitioner S.P. Gupta who did not suffer any personal injury, but as a member of the Bar was entitled to a mandamus to the authorities concerned to fill up the vacancies; so too re-fixation of the Judges’ strength taking into account the requirement of the day. In Judges-1 case the Supreme Court held that when the constitutional provisions are crystal clear and offer no two meanings or lack any clarity, the words employed in the Constitution ought to be given its literal meaning and that ‘consultation’ does not mean ‘concurrence’; so too that the question of fixation of Judges’ strength is justiciable, though to a limited extent. Shri Justice Ratnavel Pandian, who wrote the lead judgment in Judges-2 case and answered all questions, held that the word ‘consultation’ does not mean ‘concurrence’ and to hold otherwise would amount to rewriting of the Constitution. However, His Lordship became a party to the majority which rewrote Articles 124(2) and 217 of the Constitution inasmuch as the summary of the conclusions appearing in paragraph 502 of the judgment in Judges-2 case amounts to rewriting of the Constitution. While holding that ‘consultation’ does not mean ‘concurrence’, His Lordship also held that it is for the consultor to decide whether to accept the advice of the consultee and not the other way round, though the ultimate effect of the judgment is that the consultor becomes a slave of the consultee and it is not for the consultor to decide whether to go by the advice of the consultee or not, but the consultor would be bound by the advice of the consultee, the CJI, for, the majority held that the CJI enjoys supremacy.

11. With utmost respect the Petitioners beg to submit that the entire finding in the judgment in Judges-2 case is contrary to reason and logic. Even an eminent Judge like Justice Kuldip Singh went on to hold that constitutional conventions, which His Lordship was pleased to hold as the practice in vogue since independence, namely, by and large to go by the advice of the CJI, as a constitutional convention and the convention will supersede the letter of the Constitution. It is difficult to fathom how an eminent Judge like His Lordship could hold the fact that since 1950 out of 211, 210 appointments to the High Courts as per the recommendations of the CJI; so too during previous decade out of 547, 540 appointments were made on the recommendations of the CJI would justify to rewrite the Constitution, namely, to say that instead of the President, the consultor, shall make appointments keeping with him the freedom to accept or not to accept the opinion of the consultee, the CJI, because the Government has always respected the views of the CJI. To hold that a convention will supersede the letter of the constitutional provision is against reason; to hold that if the Government always respected the views of the CJI, the Government has lost its right as a consultor to accept or not to accept the views of the consultee and proceed with the appointment is forfeiture. The Petitioners in all humility beg to submit – how come such eminent lawyers who argued for and against in the Judges-2 case missed the obvious; how could a judgment as in Judges-2 case, which is against the first principle of jurisprudence, against reason and logic, could at all be delivered by a Nine-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court? The answer is not difficult to find. It is so simple and manifest, namely, nemo debet esse judex in propria causa – “no one can be judge in his own cause” and nemo potest esse simul actor et judex – “no one can be at once suitor and Judge”, no matter how erudite, eminent, scholarly and noble one could be. In Judges-2 case, Judges themselves were the real parties; it is all about their power and when Judges themselves are parties, a cause before them, they miss the obvious, something as clear as daylight because Judges, howsoever eminent they could be, are humans and fallible as they are. And how come men so eminent, scholarly, erudite, noble and respected like Sarvashri F.S. Nariman, Kapil Sibal, Ram Jethmalani, P.P. Rao and Shanti Bhushan et al could raise so frivolous, illogical and irrational a contention that the Court should rewrite the Constitution, the Court usurp to itself the power of appointment of Judges, it should, instead of upholding the constitutional law of the country, destroy the very concept of separation of powers which they held so sacrosanct and how come S/Shri Milon Banerjee and Parasaran failed to raise the simple plea that those petitions are not justiciable at all; there was no cause of action, no issues, no parties and even if the petitions are justiciable, then to hear the public at large because it is all about rewriting of the Constitution of India, something which concerns every citizen of the country.

G R O U N D S

Grounds in support of the reliefs sought for are fairly elaborated in the statement of facts above and hence are not repeated. The Review Petitioners respectfully submit that paragraphs 1 to 11 hereinabove may be read and treated as the grounds in support of the instant Review Petition. Nonetheless, the Review Petitioners beg to submit that:

A. It has become imperative for the Petitioners, though they claim no right to represent the public at large, the people of this country, to seek a review of the judgment in Judges-2 case since the said judgment has caused irreparable damage to the institution of judiciary and its democratic character. As elaborated in the statements of facts above, the said judgment is the result of a misplaced anxiety on the part of the elite class of lawyers of the Supreme Court that in the light of certain observations of the Seven-Judge Constitution Bench in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, ‘consultation’ does not mean ‘concurrence’ and the executive is free to appoint Judges to the higher judiciary not necessarily in terms of the advice rendered by the CJI. The so-called eminent lawyers, therefore, using the platform of SCAORA sought rewriting of the Constitution, nay, judicial legislation in the garb of interpretation. The Nine-Judge Constitution Bench happened, unfortunate though, to accept the plea the Court should legislate, rewriting Articles 124(2) and 217 of the Constitution. The Hon’ble Judges who composed the Nine-Judge Bench were great Judges, noble ones. However, none of them, except for Justice Krishna Iyer, felt that the rewriting of the Constitution in the manner done in Judges-2 case will lead to the entire higher judiciary being reduced to oligarchy. Justice Krishna Iyer had the wisdom to foresee that blood is thicker than water and that the judiciary even when was largely a monopoly of the elite class of lawyers and Judges and the investiture of absolute power of appointment of Judges to the higher judiciary, nay, the collegium, will lead to the judiciary being further reduced to the forte of legal dynasties. What Justice Krishna Iyer predicted happened. With the growth of the PIL jurisprudence to a dimension which legendary Judges would not have ever imagined even in the wildest of their dreams, instead of a public-spirited person being permitted to expose the cause of an undertrial who is deprived of his fundamental rights, freedom and liberties because of his poverty, illiteracy and the like, the said jurisdiction took a different pathway and became a tool for substitution of the legislature, the Supreme Court and High Courts acting as if they are judiciary and legislature, both at once;

B. The Judges-2 case led to the democracy being practically substituted by ‘Judgeocracy’, the Supreme Court of India becoming the most powerful Court in the planet, a Court which far from declaring the law of the land becoming the prime legislature. Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution today are something which the Founding Fathers could never have visualised. Article 141, a provision by which the concept of stare decisis or precedent was recognised by express terms, came to be a power to legislate. Article 142 is today a provision which would entitle the Court to pass any order it pleases, no matter whether the parties who are adversely affected by the Court are before the Court or not or whether the function is in the exclusive domain of the executive;

C. Judges-2 case, a de facto legislation, which the Supreme Court took recourse to on the premise that the Constitution (Sixty-seventh) Amendment Act by which a National Judicial Commission was contemplated would take time to be a reality and till such time by means of an appropriate amendment to the Constitution as an interim measure the Court should legislate, which it did, and thereby the collegium system was invented, which, in no time, proved to be a great misadventure. Even Justice J.S. Verma, who was the leading force behind the invention of the collegium, later declared in open that he never thought that it would be such a great calamity. Shri Fali S. Nariman, who is considered to be the person behind the judgment in Judges-2 case, has devoted a whole Chapter(16) under the caption “A CASE I WON –BUT WHICH I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE LOST” in his autobiography “BEFORE MEMORY FADES” and declared in introspection that he wished that he had lost that case;

D. The Parliament representing the voice of the people unanimously passed the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014. Shri Ram Jethmalani was the sole dissenter. The said amendment was ratified by 21 States. However, for reasons difficult to be fathomed, better known only to Shri Fali Nariman, he came in the forefront, once again using the platform of SCAORA, and demanded the collegium, which he himself had condemned, to be restored and the Constitution amendment to be quashed. The then Attorney General Shri Mukul Rohatgi repeated the very same mistake which Shri Parasaran committed in 1993, namely, failed to challenge the very maintainability of the so-called PIL of SCAORA by asking a simple question as to whether anybody’s fundamental right is violated by the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014 and, if so, how. None has alleged violation of his fundamental right, not even a legal right. The so-called PIL was wholly not maintainable. Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014 were legislations in the realm of legislative policy, which is not justiciable, and if one were to plead otherwise, then every citizen of the country ought to have been heard;

E. Like in the Judges-2 case, in the NJAC case also the most pertinent question, namely, how equal opportunity to all eligible and deserving candidates for selection and appointment as Judges could be given, which could only be possible if an open and transparent selection by inviting applications and conducting even written tests, was not raised at all. The Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014 were struck down holding that they are against the so-called ratio of the judgment in Judges-2 case, a judgment which is wholly unconstitutional and void, inasmuch as it was nothing but rewriting of the Constitution, for which the Supreme Court has no power. Judges-2 case has been declared to be the law of the land and the collegium system has been restored. The scenario today is alarming. The Supreme Court of India today is “Sons’ Court of India”, majority of the Judges being the kith and kin, nephews and juniors of sitting and former Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, so too of celebrated lawyers, Chief Ministers, Governors et al, and a few first generation lawyers who are all politically connected or are close to big industrial houses. There are 30 crores of people belonging to SC/ST; there is not a single representation to them. Ninety per cent of the Bar consist of first generation lawyers, the sons and daughters of taxi drivers, farmers, fishermen, rickshaw pullers, daily wagers, teachers et al. They have hardly any representation in the higher judiciary;

F. The very democratic legitimacy of the superior judiciary is under a serious question mark. If the Parliament had enacted a law rendering an unfortunate and alarming situation, one could take recourse to judicial review; if the Government were to appoint Judges in the manner done by the collegium, the same could be challenged before the Court, for, judicial review cannot be denied. But when the collegium appoints, which is an executive function, it cannot be challenged because in Judges-2 case it is made clear that no judicial review would lie. Even if the said judgment had not said so, such an exercise would be futile because Judges are also humans, howsoever eminent and noble they could be, and they are also susceptible to prejudices and bias, which common people like the Petitioners are prone to. Unless the judgment in Judges-2 case is reviewed and declared to be void as one amounting to rewriting of the Constitution, for which the Supreme Court has no power, the future of India as a constitutional democracy is at peril. The Petitioners, their children and grandchildren cannot be bound by the judgment in the Judges-2 case. It is liable to declared to be void. To err is human and in Judges-2 case the Hon’ble Judges have erred. The institution of the Supreme Court is a great one and the Hon’ble Judges have the sagacity, wisdom, humility and courage to acknowledge and accept that in Judges-2 case they have erred and to undo a wrong.
Hence, the instant Review Petition.

PRAYERS

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to take recourse to the procedure of review and:
[Seeking review of the judgment dated 06/10/1993 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) 1303 of 1987 reported as Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association And Anr. v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441]

(a) declare that the judgment in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441, 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;

(b) to put the above prayer in a manner as is precisely done, namely, to use the usual phrase, to review the judgment dated 06/10/1993 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) 1303 of 1987 reported as Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association And Anr. v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441, popularly known as the Judges-2 case;

c) pass any such other order or orders/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

DRAWN BY: FILED BY:
MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA A.C.PHILIP
[National Lawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Reforms and Transparency, represented by its Secretary, A.C.Philip and Others]
Petitioners in Person
New Delhi.
Drawn on :__.08.2018
Filed on :__.08.2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. __ OF 2018
(D.No.___/2018)

IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 13 OF 2015
a) (Seeking review of the order dated 16-10-2015 passed by this Hon’ble Court in WP (Civil). No. 13/2015)
National Lawyers’ Campaign for
Judicial Reforms and Transparency,
represented by its
Gen.Secretary, RohiniM.Amin
and Others …..Review Petitioners
IN THE MATTER OF:
The Supreme Court
Advocates-on-Record
Association and Anr. .…..PETITIONER

VERSUS

The Union of India …..RESPONDENT
A F F I D A V I T
I, RohiniM.Amin, W/o Mr.Mohit Amin, Advocate, Adult,Indian, residing at: B/705, Nirman Apts., R.J Marg, Vikas Nagar, Pump House, Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400 093, Presently at New Delhi, for self and on behalf of Other review petitioners do hereby solemnly swear and affirm as follows:-
1. That I am the authorized representative of the 1stReviewPetitioner in the above Writ Petition, and the 4th Review petitioner in person. I am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and hence, I am competent to swear this affidavit.
2. I state that I have read and understood the contents of the accompanying Review petition paragraph 1 to 41 at page 1 to 66, Synopsis & List of dates at page B to G, application for the declaration that there is no delay, application for exemption from filing the copy of the impugned order, Application seeking open Court hearing of the Review Petition and the Application for permission to appear and argue the Review Petition in-person. The contents of the same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
3. I state that that the Annexures, filed with the Review Petition are true and correct copies of their respective originals.
.Place: Delhi
DEPONENT
Verification
I, the Deponent above named, do hereby verify and state that the contents of the Affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief. No part of it is false and nothing has been concealed there from.
Verified at New Delhi on this the ___th day of February, 2018.

Place: New Delhi DEPONENT

APPENDIX-I

Articles 137 and 145 of the Constitution of India

“Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court.

137. Subject to the provisions of any law made byParliament or any rules made under article 145, theSupreme Court shall have power to review any judgment
pronounced or order made by it.

“Rules of Court, etc.

145. (1) Subject to the provisions of any law made byParliament, the Supreme Court may from time to time,with the approval of the President, make rules forregulating generally the practice and procedure of theCourt including—
(a) rules as to the persons practising before theCourt;
(b) rules as to the procedure for hearing appealsand other matters pertaining to appeals includingthe time within which appeals to the Court are to beentered;
(c) rules as to the proceedings in the Court for theenforcement of any of the rights conferred byPart III;
[(cc) rules as to the proceedings in the Courtunder
1[article 139A];]
(d) rules as to the entertainment of appeals under
2sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of article 134;
(e) rules as to the conditions subject to which anyjudgment pronounced or order made by the Courtmay be reviewed and the procedure for such reviewincluding the time within which applications to theCourt for such review are to be entered;
(f) rules as to the costs of and incidental to anyproceedings in the Court and as to the fees to becharged in respect of proceedings therein;
(g) rules as to the granting of bail;
(h) rules as to stay of proceedings;
(i) rules providing for the summary determinationof any appeal which appears to the Court to befrivolous or vexatious or brought for the purpose ofdelay;
(j) rules as to the procedure for inquiries referredto in clause (1) of article 317.
Rules of Court, etc.
(2) Subject to the 1[provisions of * clause (3)], rulesmade under this article may fix the minimum number ofJudges who are to sit for any purpose, and may providefor the powers of single Judges and Division Courts.
(3) 3[22*** The minimum number] of Judges who are tosit for the purpose of deciding any case involving asubstantial question of law as to the interpretation of thisConstitution or for the purpose of hearing any referenceunder article 143 shall be five:
Provided that, where the Court hearing an appealunder any of the provisions of this Chapter other thanarticle 132 consists of less than five Judges and in thecourse of the hearing of the appeal the Court is satisfiedthat the appeal involves a substantial question of law asto the interpretation of this Constitution the determinationof which is necessary for the disposal of the appeal, suchCourt shall refer the question for opinion to a Courtconstituted as required by this clause for the purpose ofdeciding any case involving such a question and shallon receipt of the opinion dispose of the appeal inconformity with such opinion.
(4) No judgment shall be delivered by the SupremeCourt save in open Court, and no report shall be madeunder article 143 save in accordance with an opinionalso delivered in open Court.
(5) No judgment and no such opinion shall bedelivered by the Supreme Court save with theconcurrence of a majority of the Judges present at thehearing of the case, but nothing in this clause shall bedeemed to prevent a Judge who does not concur fromdelivering a dissenting judgment or opinion.”

The Union of India …..RESPONDENT

APPLICATION SEEKING A DECLARATION THAT THERE IS NO DELAY IN FILING THE INSTANT REVIEW PETITION

To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India
And His Companion Judges of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

The humble petition of the petitioner above named
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH
1. The present review petition is in challenge of the common order and judgment DATED 06/10/1993 passed by this Hon’ble Court in IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 1303 OF 1987 whereby the Constitution was literally amended under the pretext of interpretation.
2. That the facts and grounds set out in Review Petition be read as a part of this application as the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
3. The impugned judgment is dated 06.10.1993. The instant petitioners were not party to the said proceedings, nor served with any notice of the above while passing the impugned orders, even though it adversely effected their constitutional and legal rights, including their Fundamental Rights. They had only the information as reported by the media. Hence the petitioners had no avenue to challenge the same with the review petition proceedings. Hence no delay can be attributed or calculated, as no date is in existence in which they were under notice. Neither they were under notice to partake in the proceedings. But, by way of the said judgment sought to be reviewed, the review petitioners’ rights are adversely affected. Hence virtually, there is no delay in filing this review petition, in the said judgment.
4. That the petitioner most humbly and respectfully submits that, there is no delay in filing the instant Review Petition. The lapse of days has occurred because of the circumstances supra.
5. That the petitioner most humbly and respectfully submits that there was no deliberate intention on his part in keeping quiet till this day and the same is only because of bonafide and genuine reasons and circumstances stated above. The petitioners most humbly and respectfully submits that he has a good case on merit in the Review Petition before this Hon’ble Court.
7. That the petitioners most humbly and respectfully submit that if this application is not considered, they will be put to irreparable loss, injuries, hardships and great injustice will be caused to him.
P R A Y E R
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to :-
b) to declare that there is no delay in filing the Review Petition against the final Judgment and Order
passed by this Hon’ble Court in WP (Civil). No. 13/2015.
c) Without prejudice to the above prayer, to condone the delay of 470 days in filing the above review petition.
d) Pass such other further order/orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

FILED BY::

[National Lawyers’ Campaign forJudicial Reforms and Transparency, represented by its Secretary, A.C.Philip and Others]
Advocate Party in Person
New Delhi.
Drawn on:__.02.2018
Filed on:__.02.2018
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ___ OF 2018
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 1303 OF 1987
[Seeking review of the judgment dated 06/10/1993 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) 1303 of 1987 reported as Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association And Anr. v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441]

The Union of India …..RESPONDENT

AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06/10/1993 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 1303 OF 1987
To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India
And His Companion Judges of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

FILED BY::

[National Lawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Reforms and Transparency, represented by its Secretary, A.C.Philip and Others]
Advocate Party in Person
New Delhi.
Drawn on:__.02.2018
Filed on:__.02.2018
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ___ OF 2018
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 1303 OF 1987
[Seeking review of the judgment dated 06/10/1993 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) 1303 of 1987 reported as Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association And Anr. v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441]

The Union of India …..RESPONDENT

APPLICATION SEEKING HEARING OF THIS
REVIEW PETITION IN THE OPEN COURT

TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF PETITIONER ABOVENAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH
1. The present review petition is in challenge of the common order and judgment DATED 06/10/1993 passed by this Hon’ble Court in IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 1303 OF 1987 whereby the Constitution was literally amended under the pretext of interpretation.
2. That the facts and grounds set out in Review Petition be read as a part of this application as the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
3. The present review petition is in challenge of the common order and judgment dated 16.10.2015 passed by this Hon’ble Court in WP (Civil). No. 13/2015 whereby the Constitution(99TH Amendment) Act,2014 and National Judicial Appointments Commission Act,2014 were declared to be unconstitutional and void.
4. That the facts and grounds set out in Review Petition be read as a part of this application as the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
5. The impugned judgment is dated 16.10.2015. The instant petitioners were not party to the said proceedings, nor served with any notice of the above while passing the impugned orders, even though it adversely effected their constitutional and legal rights, including their Fundamental Rights. Hence the petitioners had no avenue to take part in the above proceedings, nor was permitted to be heard in any meaningful way, and hence approached this Hon’ble Court vide the writ petition No. 20/2018, which was dismissed by this Hon’ble Court, by order dated 30.12.2016, with the observation that the petitioners do have the option to seek the review of the above said judgment dated 16.10.2018, and hence this review petition is preferred. The said order is annexed as Annexure- P2 to the above reviewpetition(in page Nos. 81 to 93).
6. The Petitioners are constrained to file the instant Petition for the declaratory remedies sought for therein since the declaratory and mandatory remedies sought for in my Writ Petition instituted under article 32 were not considered at all. This Hon’ble Court heard the distinguished Counsels for the Petitioners in challenge of the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the NJAC Act to the full pleasure of their souls. The petitioners have no grievance on that count. They are the men of great learning, erudition, knowledge and experience. However in support of the NJAC, there were equally eminent celebrity Lawyers led by Attorney General. However, to err is human and the lesson which the history teaches us is that eminent men, even his holiness the Pope, the Arch Bishops and Chief Justices err and fail. It is said even the Homer nods at times. Errareest humanis todayreckoned to be a truth universally, even his holiness the Pope is fallible. The learned Attorney General, Solicitor General and the distinguished team of Lawyers with him, however erred, in my opinion, erred calamitously in failing to point out to this Court that the PILs in challenge of NJAC are not maintainable, thus, there exists no lis, the controversy is in the realm of legislative/ executive policies in the matter of selection and appointment of judges and that the question of this Court being invested upon a jurisdiction whether the wisdom of the parliament in bringing in Constitutional 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act to remedy the mischief arising out of the judges 2, judges 3 cases, which had meant re-writing of the constitution and providing for a mechanism of appointment of the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts in a manner diametrically opposite to the manner in which it was provided for in the Constitution under Article 124 and 217. Since the petitioner’s rights were grossly involved, the Fundamental, Constitutional, legal and equitable as well, and the were not served with any notice to the above proceedings, and not allowed to be represented or defend themselves and their rights, as aforesaid, came to the petitioner’s notice and they ventured at my level best vide the petition no.WP(C) No.20/2018 to correct the aberrations caused to their rights. The whole hearing of the case has gone haywire and the core issue, the preliminary issue, the question as to the very maintainability of the WP, the very justciability of the issues, the very jurisdiction of this Court to decide whether or not the said Acts are constitutional, is lost sight of. The senior advocates who ventured into making the law of the land through the writ proceedings never ventured to point out quoting Horace “parturient montes, nasceturridiculusmus” – mountains are in labour and what is brought out is a ridiculous mouse. It was never pointedout relying on Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission, [1969] 2 AC 147, [1969] 2 WLR 163,that the issue involved here is a jurisprudential question which is ‘going to’ the very jurisdiction and competence of the Court to embark upon the correctness or otherwise of the said acts which the parliament has enacted in exercise of its wisdom of which no one has complained of any violation of fundamental right and, thus, not justiciable. There were no meaningful venture to point out that the doctrine of impingement of the basic structure could be pressed into service only where fundamental rights are violated. If there is no plea that fundamental rights are violated, no question of invoking the doctrine of basic structure arises. KeshavanandaBharathi laid down a preposition that fundamental rights can be curtailed but it cannot be entirely emasculated or abrogated. The quintessence of the parity of the Constitution is primarily reaffirmation of the substantive law in the realm of a subject ‘right to life, liberties and freedom’. The doctrine of basic structure is not in the realm of substantive law. It is in the realm of adjectival law. Rule of law is in the realm of adjectival of law. You need an impartial, independent, just and fair justice delivery system, just laws and good Judges for the enforcement of remedies in the realm of substantive law, namely, preservation of life, liberty, freedom properties, estate, title, etc. This is how the humble Petitioner would in all humility beg to state to have understood the doctrine of basic structure.
7. The petitioners were unheard, and no notice were issued as well. 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 there is no whisper whatsoever about thecontentions of ordinary lawyers and the common people whom they represented at all, not even a word. The presiding Judge, while applying the guillotine while the junior advocates tried to make any representations and seeking to the senior advocates to harness the other advocates, were virtually throwing the rights of the common people, including the petitioners herein to the peril. The only way the injustice which has resulted in failing to afford the common men, including the instant review petitioners is to allow a fair hearing in the open court and in failing to take notice of this contention could be undone is to hear the petitioners in the open court. Hence the accompanying application for hearing the Review Petition in the open Court of the instant issue which is of transcendental, monumental and primordial importance.

PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to :

a) allow this Application and hear the accompanying Review Petition in open Court ; and

b) pass any such other order or orders/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

FILED BY::

[National Lawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Reforms and Transparency, represented by its Secretary, A.C.Philip and Others]
Advocate Party in Person
New Delhi.
Drawn on:__.02.2018
Filed on:__.02.2018
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ___ OF 2018
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 1303 OF 1987
[Seeking review of the judgment dated 06/10/1993 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) 1303 of 1987 reported as Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association And Anr. v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441]

The Union of India …..RESPONDENT

APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE THE REVIEW PETITION AS PARTY IN PERSON

TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF PETITIONER ABOVENAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH
The present review petition is in challenge of the common order and judgment DATED 06/10/1993 passed by this Hon’ble Court in IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 1303 OF 1987 whereby the Constitution was literally amended under the pretext of interpretation.
2. That the facts and grounds set out in Review Petition be read as a part of this application as the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
1. The present review petition is in challenge of the common order and judgment dated 16.10.2015 passedby this Hon’ble Court in WP (Civil). No. 13/2015 whereby the Constitution(99TH Amendment) Act,2014 and National Judicial Appointments Commission Act,2014 were declared to be unconstitutional and void.
2. That the facts and grounds set out in Review Petition be read as a part of this application as the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
3. The impugned judgment is dated 16.10.2015. The instant petitioners were not party to the said proceedings, nor served with any notice of the above while passing the impugned orders, even though it adversely effected their constitutional and legal rights, including their Fundamental Rights. Hence the petitioners had no avenue to take part in the above proceedings, nor was permitted to be heard in any meaningful way, and hence approached this Hon’ble Court vide the writ petition No. 20/2018, which was dismissed by this Hon’ble Court, by order dated 30.12.2016, with the observation that the petitioners do have the option to seek the review of the above said judgment dated 16.10.2018, and hence this review petition is preferred. The said order is annexed as Annexure- P2 to the above reviewpetition(in page Nos. 81 to 93).
4. The review petitioners approached as many Advocate On Record of this Hon’ble Court for filing the instant review petition, whereas nobody came forward to sign the petition, for filing. Hence the review petitioners may please be permitted to file the above review petition as party-in-person, through it’s duly authorized representative. The review petitioner is not willing to engage any advocate on record as may be appointed on it’s behalf.
5. Hence, this Application.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to :

a) Permit the review petitioners to file the above review petition as party in person through it’s duly authorized representative; and

b) pass any such other order or orders/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

FILED BY::
[National Lawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Reforms and Transparency, represented by its Secretary, A.C.Philip and Others]
Advocate Party in Person
New Delhi.
Drawn on :_.0_.2018
Filed on :_.0_.2018

The Union of India …..RESPONDENT

APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO ENGAGE MR.MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA AS ARGUING COUNSEL
TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF PETITIONER ABOVENAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH

1. The present review petition is in challenge of the common order and judgment DATED 06/10/1993 passed by this Hon’ble Court in IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 1303 OF 1987 whereby the Constitution was literally amended under the pretext of interpretation.
2. That the facts and grounds set out in Review Petition be read as a part of this application as the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
3. The present review petition is in challenge of the common order and judgment dated 16.10.2015 passedby this Hon’ble Court in WP (Civil). No. 13/2015 whereby the Constitution(99TH Amendment) Act,2014 and National Judicial Appointments Commission Act,2014 were declared to be unconstitutional and void.
4. That the facts and grounds set out in Review Petition be read as a part of this application as the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
5. The impugned judgment is dated 16.10.2015. The instant petitioners were not party to the said proceedings, nor served with any notice of the above while passing the impugned orders, even though it adversely effected their constitutional and legal rights, including their Fundamental Rights. Hence the petitioners had no avenue to take part in the above proceedings, nor was permitted to be heard in any meaningful way, and hence approached this Hon’ble Court vide the writ petition No. 20/2018, which was dismissed by this Hon’ble Court, by order dated

In The Supreme Court of India Civil Original Jurisdiction Review Petition (Civil) No. ___ of 2018

About Us

Latest Posts

Examining Judicial Review and Curative Jurisprudence: A Critical Analysis

Examining Judicial Review and Curative Jurisprudence: A Critical Analysis

Contact Us

In The Supreme Court of India Civil Original Jurisdiction Review Petition (Civil) No. ___ of 2018

More News

About Us

Latest Posts

Contact Us