Don't Misbehave: CJI Surya Kant tells Advocate Nedumpara over NJAC plea mentioning

Chief Justice of India today pulled up Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara over the way he mentioned a petition before the Supreme Court's bench concerning the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).

As Nedumpara mentioned his petition before a bench also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Nedumpara, he stated, "Your Lordships have now constituted a Constitution Bench for Adani and Ambani, but the Registry hasn’t even looked at the NJAC petition, it is an issue that concerns the general public at large..".

Taking exception to this, a miffed CJI Surya Kant responded, "I am warning you Mr. Nedumpara, be careful with what you say in my court. You have seen me in Chandigarh and now in Delhi. I am putting you on warning. Just because you have misbehaved with benches in the past, it doesn’t mean you can do the same in my court...".

Notably in 2024, the Supreme Court Registry had declined to register a writ petition filed by advocate Mathews J Nedumpara and others challenging validity of the Collegium system of appointment of judges in constitutional courts, stating the plea has filed to overreach the principles of settled law or with some ulterior motive.

Said plea was filed on the premise that the Collegium System of appointment of judges has resulted in the denial of equal opportunity for the petitioners and thousands of lawyers. The petitioners primarily sought mechanism in place of the Collegium and sought reconsideration on the striking down of the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014.

By a detailed order, SC Registrar (J-A) Puneet Sehgal had said, "In my opinion the prayers as have been sought for have already elaborately been covered in the judgment which is a judgment in rem dated 16th October, 2015. The present petition, in one manner or the other replicates the issues as have already been put to rest by detailed Judgment".

"In order to prevent needless waste of judicial time and energy, it is critical to ensure litigants do not overburden courts with the matters already stands adjudicated. Additionally, the repeated litigation of an already adjudicated matter is generally not in the public's best interest. The principle of res-judicata bars the invoking of provisions of law as sought by the petitioner. It appears that the present petition has been filed in order to over-reach the principles of settled law or with some ulterior motive," the order adds.

The Registrar held this was a fit case which attracts Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and entails non- registration. "Accordingly, I hereby, hold that the registration of the present case was not proper and by virtue of Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, I hereby, decline to receive the same," he said. Registrar Sehgal has also noted by virtue of the present petition, the petitioners under the garb of original jurisdiction are seeking review of the judgment by the five judge Constitution bench of October 16, 2015 remedy of which has already been exhausted in Review Petition of 2018 and the same cannot be legally permitted to be re-agitated again.

The petitioners alleged that the prevailing Collegium System which has evolved by way of second and third Judges case is not effective for maintaining and procuring records of administrative functions in Higher Judiciary nor it is effective so as to apprise the general public about the candidates who have been appointed to Supreme Court. It has been alleged by the petitioners that there is no fixed criteria and procedure for appointment of Judges.

For some background into the issue, Parliament had enacted the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014. These replaced the Collegium system for appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. The NJAC aimed to make judicial appointments more transparent and include executive participation.

The Supreme Court of India in 2015 struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment and NJAC Act as unconstitutional and restored the Collegium system for judicial appointments holding that any law undermining independence of judiciary is invalid. Supreme Court had further held that judiciary must have decisive role in appointing judges.

Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Bagchi

Mentioning Date: February 23, 2026