New Delhi
The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition seeking review of its October 2015 verdict that declared the National Judicial Appointments Commission unconstitutional and revived the Collegium system of judicial appointments.

A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi dismissed the review petition filed by National Lawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms, saying it was delayed and was devoid of merit.

“There is a delay of 470 days in filing the present review petition, for which no satisfactory explanation has been offered. The review petition is liable to dismissed on the ground of delay alone,” said the Bench.

In accordance with the practice followed in the Supreme Court, the review petition was taken up ‘in chamber’ and it was dealt with ‘by circulation’ without advocates being allowed to advance arguments.

The review of the 2015 verdict was primarily sought on the ground that it went against the doctrine of separation of powers as the top court assumed the role of both Parliament and the Executive. It has resulted in a “ridiculous scenario” where Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution (which deal with appointment of SC and HC judges) were to be read diametrically opposite to what they stated, the review petitioner contended.

“Even otherwise, we have carefully gone through the review petition and considered the merits. We did not find any merit in the same,” the Bench said in its November 27 order uploaded on top court’s website on Saturday.

A five-judge Constitution Bench had on October 16, 2015, struck down the NJAC Act, 2014, and revived the Collegium system under which a panel of top judges appoint judges of the Supreme Court and high courts following a 1993 verdict that reduced the role of the executive to mere checking of antecedents and issuance of formal warrant of appointment.

The 2015 verdict was delivered by 4:1 majority in which Justice J Chelameswar had delivered a dissenting verdict. It had also declared unconstitutional the Constitution Ninety-Ninth Amendment Act, 2014.

The NJAC was to be a six-member panel which would have included the CJI, two senior judges of the Supreme Court, the Union Law Minister and two eminent persons to be selected by the CJI, Prime Minister and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha.

But the majority of 4 judgesJustice JS Khehar. Justice Lokur, Justice Joseph and Justice AK Goel ruled that NJAC went against judicial independence, a basic feature of the Constitution, as it included the Union Law Minister in the appointment panel.

The NDA government had grudgingly accepted the verdict even if it maintained that the Executive had a legitimate say in the judicial appointment process.

Since then the government and the Supreme Court Collegium have been at loggerheads over several judicial appointments, particularly over Justice KM Joseph’s elevation and the issue of finalisation of Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for appointment of judges still remains a sticky point.