Credibility of Supreme Court Cannot Be Eroded By Individual's Statements: Bombay High Court dismisses PIL filed against Vice President, Law Minister
The high court dismissed the PIL against Vice President and Law Minister while noting that fair criticism of judgments is permissible.
A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne while dismissing a PIL filed seeking removal of Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar and Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju has recently observed that the credibility of the Supreme Court is sky-high and it cannot be eroded by a statement of individuals.
The order stated, “The credibility of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is sky high. 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 its constitutional values. The constitutional institutions are to be respected by all, including constitutional authorities and persons holding constitutional posts.”
The order further states that the Vice President had also made statements that he has the highest respect for the judiciary. While dismissing the PIL, the court said that fair criticism of judgment is permissible.
“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,” the court said.
Court, therefore, held,
“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.”
The PIL filed by the Bombay Lawyers Association stated that: "The Petitioner states that the above conduct of the Respondent No. 1 & 2 is nothing limited to attack on judiciary but frontal attack on the Constitution of India. Despite all these derogatory statements towards the judiciary and the Constitution of India, no action against the Respondent No. 1 & 2 has been taken by any constitutional authority."
The PIL sought a declaration from the court that the Law Minister and Vice President have disqualified themselves from holding the constitutional post by expressing a lack of faith in the Constitution of India.
The plea also prayed before the court to restrain the Vice President and the Law Minister from discharging their duties.
During the hearing Advocate, Ahmed Abdi for the petitioner argued that it is the duty of everyone to respect the Constitution. He submitted that if every constitutional post starts acting like them and makes public comments then there will be anarchy. He argued that instead of making public comments the Law Minister and the Vice President should pass a Bill in the Parliament.
Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh for the Law Minister and Vice President argued that it was a frivolous PIL."This is a frivolous plea and gross waste of time of the court. This is nothing but a publicity stunt. Before the matter comes it is circulated in the media. The only purpose is publicity," he stated.
Case Title: Bombay Lawyer Association vs Jagdeep Dhankar & Ors
Statue: Constitution of India