In this writ petition challenging the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2014, the High Court held that no further declaration is required as the Supreme Court had already struck down the Act. The petition was accordingly dismissed as sub judice.
No further declaration required; petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.2078 OF 2015(S)
PETITIONER/PARTY-IN-PERSON
BAISIL ATTIPETTY @ BASIL A.G. (DIED) ATTIPETY HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM P.O., VYPIN ISLAND, COCHIN, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA - 682 509.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
R1 BY SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-01-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
W.P.(C)No.2078 of 2015
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2021
S.Manikumar, C.J.
The petitioner has sought for a declaration that the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 (Act 40 of 2014) is null and void and for other reliefs. Constitutional validity of the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act was tested before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association and Another v. Union of India reported in (2016) 5 SCC 1. After hearing the parties therein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has struck down the said Act.
In the light of the above, no further declaration is required in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
S.Manikumar Chief Justice
Sd/-
Shaji P.Chaly Judge
vpv
W.P.(C)No.2078 of 2015
3
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT | P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL |
|---|---|
| APPOINTMENTS COMMISSION ACT, 2014 (ACT NO.40 OF 2014). |
|
| EXHIBIT | P2 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES ON RECORD ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER VS.UNION OF INDIA REPORTED IN 1993 (4) SCC 441. |
| EXHIBIT | P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN IN RE: PRESIDENTIAL REFERENCE REPORTED IN 1998 (7) SCC 739. |
| EXHIBIT | P4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC.NO. 5201/2011 REPORTED IN 2011 (1) KHC 8731. |
| EXHIBIT | P5 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 5 OCTOBER 2012 IN WPC.NO. 22411/2012. |
| EXHIBIT | P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 09/11/1975 WRITTEN BY NANI A., PALKIWALA TO THE THEN PRIME MINISTER, SMT. INDIRA GANDHI. |
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner requires a declaration on the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2014 given its striking down by the Supreme Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association and Another v. Union of IndiaExplained¶20
Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association and Another v. Union of India (2016) 5 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Baisil Attipetty @ Basil A.G.
Union of India
S.Manikumar
Shaji P.Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
