The Supreme Court's Registry has refused to register a writ petition filed by advocate Mathews J Nedumpara and others challenging the validity of the Collegium system of appointing judges in constitutional courts. The Registry stated that the plea failed to comply with the principles of settled law or appeared to have been filed with some ulterior motive.

The instant plea was filed on the basis of the argument that the Collegium system of appointing judges has led to the denial of equal opportunities for the petitioners and thousands of lawyers.

The petitioners primarily requested the establishment of an alternative mechanism to replace the Collegium system and sought reconsideration of the decision to strike down the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014.

In a detailed order, SC Registrar (J-A) Puneet Sehgal stated, "I believe that the prayers sought in this petition have already been extensively addressed in the judgment, which is a judgment in rem dated 16th October 2015. The present petition, in one way or another, reiterates the issues that have already been resolved by the detailed judgment."

The order highlights the importance of preventing unnecessary consumption of judicial resources by ensuring that litigants do not burden courts with matters that have already been settled.

Moreover, it emphasises that repeatedly litigating issues that have been adjudicated is generally not in the public's interest. The principle of res judicata prohibits the invocation of provisions of law as requested by the petitioner. The order suggests that the present petition may have been filed with the intention to circumvent established legal principles or with some underlying motive.

The Registrar determined that this case falls under Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, warranting non-registration. "Accordingly, I hereby declare that the registration of the present case was not appropriate, and in accordance with Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, I hereby refuse to accept the same," he stated.

Registrar Sehgal also observed that through this petition, the petitioners, under the guise of original jurisdiction, are seeking a review of the judgment passed by the five-judge Constitution bench on October 16, 2015. He noted that the remedy for this has already been exhausted in a Review Petition filed in 2018, and it cannot be legally permitted to be re-agitated.

The order stated that once a law has been settled by the court, it cannot be reopened through the civil original jurisdiction of the court.

The petitioners have alleged that the prevailing Collegium System, which has evolved through the second and third Judges cases, is ineffective in maintaining and procuring records of administrative functions in the Higher Judiciary. They also claim that it fails to effectively inform the general public about the candidates appointed to the Supreme Court. Additionally, the petitioners argue that there is no fixed criteria or procedure for the appointment of Judges.

Image source: India Today