While not leaving even an iota of doubt on the absolutely impeccable and unquestionable credentials of the Apex Court, the Bombay High Court in a most learned, laudable, logical landmark and latest judgment titled Bombay Lawyers Association v. Jagdeep Dhankar and Ors in 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 79 in Public Interest Litigation (L) No. 3247 of 2023 in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction that was pronounced as recently as on February 9, 2023 has minced just no words to say in no uncertain terms that, “The credibility of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is sky-high. It cannot be eroded or impinged by the statements of individuals.” This was held so while dismissing the PIL that was filed against the Vice President of India – Jagdeep Dhankar and so also the Union Law Minister of India – Kiren Rijiju by the Bombay Lawyer’s Association alleging constant public criticism of the judiciary’s ‘collegium system’ and remarks against the basic structure doctrine that generated a lot of furore also. The petition sought to restrain the Vice President of India – Jagdeep Dhankar and so also the Union Law Minister of India – Kiren Rijiju from discharging their duties claiming that the two have disqualified themselves from holding constitutional posts of Vice President and Minister of the Union Cabinet through their conduct having expressed their lack of faith in the Constitution of India. The Bombay High Court while rejecting their petition held that, “The Constitutional authorities cannot be removed in the manner as suggested by the petitioner.” Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this extremely commendable, courageous, creditworthy, cogent and convincing judgment authored by Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice Mr SV Gangapurwala and Hon’ble Justice Mr Sandeep V Marne sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The present PIL is filed with the following reliefs:
“a. This Hon’ble Court may be please to declare that the conduct of the Respondent No. 1 & 2 have disqualified themselves for holding any constitutional posts of Vice President and Minister of the Union Cabinet respectively by expressing lack of faith in the Constitution of India and the law established by their behaviour and utterances made in public.
b. This Hon’ble Court may be please to restrain the Respondent No.1 from discharging his duty as Vice President of India.
c. This Hon’ble Court may be please to restrain the Respondent No.2 from discharging his duty as cabinet Minister of Union of India.
d. ……………..”
Simply put, the Division Bench then discloses in para 2 that, “The Petitioner claims to be a body registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860 established by a group of Advocates practicing at Bombay High Court with the primary purpose to undertake activities to uphold rule of law, promote high values in legal profession and to protect independence of judiciary.”
On the one hand, the Division Bench mentions in para 3 that, “Mr. Abdi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have disqualified themselves to hold the constitutional post by showing lack of faith in the Constitution of India by their conduct and utterances made in public and by attacking its institutions including Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and showing scant regard for the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The conduct of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared to have shaken public faith in Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Constitution. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have affirmed oath that they will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India. However, their conduct has shown lack of faith in Constitution of India. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have launched frontal attack on the institution of judiciary, particularly the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in most derogatory language without any recourse which is available under the constitutional scheme to change the status quo as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are attacking the collegium system as well as basic structure in public platform. This kind of unbecoming behaviour by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are holding constitutional posts is lowering the majesty of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the eye of public at large. The learned Counsel referred to various statements made by Respondent Nos.1 and 2.”
Adding more to it, the Division Bench then further states in para 4 that, “The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Article 51- A of the Constitution of India lays down the fundamental duties. It directs every citizen to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have failed to abide by their fundamental duties and have not shown respect to the constitutional institution i.e. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The learned Counsel submits that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are also guilty of committing contempt of Court by lowering the authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The authorities who are responsible to take action against Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have failed in their duty, as such, this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may exercise its powers. The learned Counsel relies upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Babul Supriyo Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. dated on 14th October, 2020 and submits that it has been held by the Calcutta High Court that it is expected from a representative of the people that he must be courteous in his behaviour, dignified in his manners and cautious on the words spoken by him. The learned Counsel also relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A.I.I.M.S. Students Union Vs. A.I.I.M.S. & Ors. Appeal (Civil) No.7366 of 1996 to submit that the fundamental duties, though not enforceable by a writ of Court, yet provide valuable guide and aid to interpretation of constitutional and legal issues.”
On the other hand, the Division Bench then brings out in para 5 stating that, “Mr. Anil Singh, the learned Additional Solicitor General submits that the present PIL is filed for publicity purpose. It is false and frivolous. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have complete faith in the Constitution. The Petitioner has annexed the statement of Respondent No.2 wherein it is said that the Central Government, under the Prime Minister has never undermined the authority of the judiciary and its independence will always remain untouched and promoted. Respondent No.1 has also said that he has highest respect for the judiciary and committed to the Constitution. The Vice President cannot be removed by orders under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned ASG relies upon the judgment of the apex court in the case of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2005) 1 SCC 590 and submits that the PILs are to be admitted with great care. The PILs cannot be for redressal, publicity oriented or political disputes.”
Needless to say, the Division Bench then mentions in para 6 that, “We have considered the submissions.”
Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 7 that, “Juridically, the expression “Public Interest Litigation” means a legal action initiated in a Court of Law for the enforcement of public interest. The PIL is a power given to the public by the Courts through judicial activism. It is a litigation filed in the Court of law for protection of public interest. The PIL can be used for redressal of a genuine public wrong or public injury and it cannot be publicity oriented. The parameters of PIL have been indicated by the apex court in catena of judgments.”
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 8 propounding that, “In the present matter, the Petitioner claims to be established by a group of Advocates practicing at Bombay High Court with the primary object of undertaking activities to uphold rule of law, promote high values in legal profession and to protect independence of judiciary. The Petitioner seeks disqualification of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 holding constitutional post on the ground that their utterances have shaken the public faith in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Constitution.”
Most significantly, the Division Bench then minces just no words to unequivocally hold in para 9 that, “The credibility of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is skyhigh. It cannot be eroded or impinged by the statements of individuals. The Constitution of India is supreme and sacrosanct. Every citizen of India is bound by the Constitution and is expected to abide by the constitutional values. The constitutional institutions are to be respected by all, including constitutional authorities and persons holding constitutional posts.”
Most commendably and also most forthrightly, we must note here that the Division Bench then also mandates in para 10 aptly holding that, “The statements made by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are annexed with the petition. The learned Additional Solicitor General has referred to some of the statements made by Respondent Nos.1 and 2, wherein it has been said that the Government has never undermined the authority of the judiciary and its independence will always remain untouched and promoted and they respect the ideals of the Constitution. Respondent No.1 has also made a statement that he has highest respect for the judiciary and is committed to the Constitution of India. The constitutional authorities cannot be removed in the manner as suggested by the Petitioner. Fair criticism of the judgment is permissible. It is no doubt, fundamental duty of every citizen to abide by the Constitution. Majesty of law has to be respected.”
As a corollary, the Division Bench then holds in para 11 observing that, “Considering the totality of the factual matrix, we do not find it a fit case to invoke our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in entertaining the PIL.”
Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by directing in para 12 that, “The PIL, as such, is dismissed.”
In summary, the Bombay High Court has made it indubitably clear that the Supreme Court’s credibility is sky high and it definitely cannot be eroded by individuals statements. The petitioners were unable to make out a fit case for the Bombay High Court to intervene by invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and dismiss the Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar and Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju. So it was but natural that the PIL was dismissed. Moreover, we ought to bear in mind that Jagdeep Dhankar has himself most distinguished experience of practicing most brilliantly in the Jodhpur High Court and so also the Supreme Court and so what he says or the Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju who too is so experienced cannot be taken for granted even by the Courts and no where have they said anything that directly affects the image of the Apex Court! Of course, this is exactly what is the real import also of this noteworthy judgment by the Bombay High Court! No denying it!
Sanjeev Sirohi