In a decision on Monday, the Supreme Court confirmed a previous ruling by the Bombay High Court that dismissed a public interest litigation lodged against Vice-President of India Jagdeep Dhankhar and Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju for their purported derogatory statements about the judiciary, news agency PTI reported.
The decision of the Bombay High Court to reject the public interest litigation back in February has been upheld by the bench led by Justice S K Kaul and Ahsanuddin Amanulla. "We believe that the High Court view is correct. If any authority has made an inappropriate statement, the observations that the Supreme Court is broad enough to deal with the same is the correct view," the bench stated.
During the hearing, Justice S K Kaul stated: "What is this? Why have you come here now? Just to complete the circle?"
In February of this year, the high court rejected the PIL, stating that the Supreme Court of India's reputation was extremely strong and could not be diminished by the remarks made by individuals.
The Bombay Lawyers Association (BLA) alleged that Rijiju and Dhankhar had demonstrated a disregard for the Constitution with their statements and actions.
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) pleaded for an order to prohibit Dhankhar and Rijiju from carrying out their responsibilities as Vice President and Union minister, respectively, until the legal challenge is fully adjudicated. Additionally, it urged that they be restrained from making derogatory, insulting, or objectionable statements revealing their distrust in the Indian Constitution and judiciary that is established by law.
According to the legal counsel, the recent actions of the two officials have not only undermined the judiciary but also the Constitution, which has greatly diminished the public's perception of the Supreme Court.
Rijiju had criticized the collegium method of selecting judges, stating that it lacked transparency and was not clear.
Vice President Dhankhar had raised doubts regarding the historic 1973 Kesavananda Bharati verdict which established the basic structure doctrine. Dhankhar expressed his concern about the ruling creating a negative example, as it could pose a challenge should any entity challenge Parliament's ability to alter the Constitution, making it challenging to maintain our identity as a democratic country.
The high court made a notable observation that the purpose of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is to address legitimate societal grievances or harm, rather than being driven by a desire for publicity.