Supreme Court Bench Asserts Authority, Rebuking Frivolous Plea and Questioning Government's Litigation 'Tactic'

NEW DELHI – In a powerful display of judicial assertiveness, a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai has underscored its intolerance for any perceived undermining of the justice system. In two separate hearings, the bench, which also included Justice K. Vinod Chandran, took a firm stance against both a petitioner seeking a self-appointment to the high court and the Union Government over its litigation strategy in a high-stakes constitutional matter.

The two cases, while vastly different in scope, collectively paint a picture of a court keen on safeguarding procedural integrity and the sanctity of judicial processes, sending a clear message to litigants of all stripes—from individual aspirants to the highest levels of government.

---

A "Mockery of the System": The Unprecedented Plea for Judgeship

In an extraordinary and brief hearing, the Supreme Court summarily dismissed a writ petition from an individual, GV Sarvan Kumar, who sought a judicial directive for his own appointment as a judge of the Telangana High Court. The bench did not mince words, expressing profound dismay at the nature of the plea.

Chief Justice Gavai labeled the petition a "mockery of the system," questioning the very foundation of such a request.

"I'll do one thing, I will constitute a bench of the three senior-most judges for a collegium meeting... this is a mockery of the system! Where have you heard of making a representation and application for appointment as a High Court judge? It's a mockery of the system!" the CJI remarked, highlighting the petition's direct affront to the established constitutional process of judicial appointments via the collegium system.

The established procedure for appointing High Court judges is a consultative process involving the High Court Collegium, the Supreme Court Collegium, and the executive branch. It is a system based on recommendation and merit evaluation, not on self-nomination or application. The petition was seen as a flagrant disregard for this constitutional framework.

The bench's displeasure extended to the counsel who filed the petition, with the court sternly suggesting that such an action warranted professional sanction. "We should withdraw your sanad for filing such a petition," the bench expressed, a severe admonishment that underscores the court's view on the professional responsibility of advocates to filter out frivolous and untenable litigation. Following a swift apology from the counsel, the court permitted the withdrawal of the petition, bringing an abrupt end to the audacious attempt.

---

A Question of "Tactic": Scrutiny of the Union's Plea in the Tribunals Act Case

The same bench's assertive tone carried over into a significantly more complex constitutional matter: the ongoing challenge to the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, brought forth by the Madras Bar Association. The hearing took a sharp turn when Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani, informed the court of a new application by the Union Government seeking to refer the case to a larger five-judge constitutional bench.

The timing of the application, filed after the petitioners had already argued their case at length before the current two-judge bench, drew immediate scrutiny from the Chief Justice.

"We don't expect the Union of India to indulge in such a tactic," CJI Gavai stated directly, framing the move not as a standard procedural request but as a potential strategy to sidestep the bench.

The Attorney General urged the court not to view the application as a "tactic," but the CJI remained unconvinced, retorting, "It is... after we have heard one party fully, after we have accommodated the learned AG on personal grounds..."

The bench made it clear that it would not automatically grant the reference. Instead, it would proceed to hear the Union's arguments on the merits of the case and would only consider referring the matter to a larger bench if it found substantive legal questions that warranted such a step. This decision effectively neutralised the immediate effect of the government's application and reasserted the bench's control over the proceedings.

Substantive Clashes Over the Tribunals Reforms Act

Beyond the procedural skirmish, the hearing delved into the core issues plaguing the Tribunals Reforms Act. Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, representing the petitioners, highlighted persistent problems with the tribunal appointment process, including the arbitrary disbanding of merit lists and the questionable practice of filling vacancies from waiting lists.

The Attorney General defended the government's actions, citing the practical complexities of the appointment process. "We have to work in a system where people drop in, drop out. Many candidates apply for several positions in different tribunals," he argued, while maintaining that the government has "never endorsed filling posts from the waiting list in preference to merit."

A key point of contention was the Act's stipulation of a minimum age of 50 years for appointment as a member or chairperson of a tribunal. CJI Gavai, drawing from personal experience, pointed out the apparent inconsistency. He noted that he himself was appointed as a High Court judge at the age of 42 and, under the logic of the impugned Act, would have been deemed ineligible for a tribunal position.

The Attorney General countered that the criteria for judicial appointments and tribunal appointments are fundamentally different. "Let's not pick up the High Court's appointments, eligibility and Article as the standard. Tribunals require a different kind of experience," he submitted, arguing for a distinct framework for what are often considered quasi-judicial, specialist bodies.

The AG's primary plea was for patience, asking the court to allow the new legislative regime to function and mature. "Let the law gain some experience a little over time; these are issues which can be worked out, ironed out after some time. To say that for these reasons, strike down the law?” he implored.

However, the CJI deftly connected this argument back to the government's reference application, asking how the plea for "letting the system work" aligned with the request to escalate the matter to a five-judge bench. This pointed questioning led to the CJI's final, direct query: "Are we wrong in creating an impression that the application is filed deliberately in order to avoid the matter?”

While the Attorney General insisted there was no such attempt, the exchange left a palpable tension in the courtroom.

---

Implications for the Bar and the Bench

The events of the day, viewed together, offer critical insights for the legal community. The bench's intolerance for what it deems frivolous litigation or procedural gamesmanship is a stern reminder of the court's role as a guardian of the judicial process itself.

For legal practitioners, the warning shot fired at the counsel in the judgeship plea case reaffirms the ethical obligation to act as gatekeepers of the justice system. For the government and high-profile litigants, the sharp questioning in the Tribunals case signals that procedural manoeuvres, especially those perceived as delay or avoidance tactics, will face rigorous judicial scrutiny.

As the hearing in the Madras Bar Association case is set to continue, the legal fraternity will be watching closely, not only for the ultimate fate of the Tribunals Reforms Act but also for the continued demonstration of this bench's commitment to upholding the integrity and authority of the Supreme Court.