Bombay HC Dismisses PIL Against VP and Law Minister On Their Judiciary Remarks

The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed a PIL seeking action against Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar and Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju over their remarks on Judiciary.

The PIL filed by the Bombay Lawyers Association alleging that Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar and Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju had disqualified themselves by demonstrating a lack of faith in the Constitution through their remarks and conduct.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjay V Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V Marne dismissed the petition and stated that reasons would be recorded separately.

Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Ahmed Abdi, argued that Dhankhar and Rijiju had lowered the reputation of the judiciary with their remarks.

Rijiju recently stated that the Collegium system of appointing judges was opaque and ineffective. Dhankhar had challenged the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case verdict in 1973, which established the basic structure doctrine.

And Dhankhar had said that the verdict set a bad precedent, and if any authority questions Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, it will be difficult to claim that we are a democratic nation.

The bench then asked the petitioner to explain under what provisions the Vice President can be disqualified. The petitioner stated that it can be done in Parliament, but the authorities in charge are not taking action, so the law must be paid down by the court.

“We are not opposed to debate and criticism, but it should take place in Parliament rather than in such a public place. This harms the judiciary’s reputation and image, as well as the trust that people have in it,” Advocate Abdi stated.

Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, appearing for Dhankhar and Rijiju, said the plea was frivolous and a publicity stunt. He emphasised that both Dhankhar and Rijiju respected India’s supreme Constitution and had no intention of attacking it.

He stated that “the petition is frivolous, a waste of court time, and nothing more than a publicity stunt. Exemplary penalties should be levied.”

In light of this, the application was dismissed.