Apex court quashes plea against sitting judge's nomination to ICJ

April 27, 2012 12:21 am | Updated December 04, 2021 11:09 pm IST - NEW DELHI

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed as withdrawn a writ petition filed by a law student challenging the nomination of Justice Dalveer Bhandari to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the ground that it would “severely” compromise the independence of the judiciary.

A three-member bench of Justice Altamas Kabir, Justice J. Chelameshwar and Justice Ranjan Gogoi was not inclined to consider any of the petitioner's demands or arguments, and finally granted him permission to withdraw the petition.

The Bench also questioned whether it could even be considered a public interest litigation petition. “What is the interest of the public? He [petitioner] is not a contender, so what is the public interest involved here?” asked Justice Altamas Kabir.

Attorney General G. E. Vahanvati said it was very unseemly that the petitioner's chose to file the petition one day before the elections. “This has been in the public domain since December 5, 2011…this cannot be done…not in this way,” he said.

The petitioner was represented by lawyer Prashant Bhusan, who said that the entire process for elections required the government to lobby on behalf of Mr. Justice Bhandari.

“The government is a major litigant in the Supreme Court, if a sitting judge is nominated for the post of judge in the ICJ by the government, which will lobby for his election …it will place him [Justice Bhandari] in a position that will severely compromise the independence of the judiciary,” he said, likening the elections of the ICJ to the Rajya Sabha or the Lok Sabha elections.

“Suppose a sitting judge is to nominate himself to the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha. It would involve the unseemly spectacle of a political party campaigning on his behalf,” he said.

However, his arguments did not convince the three-member Bench, which did not buy the petitioner's reasoning and said that there was no connection either between the elections to the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha nor in the precedents quoted by the petitioner.

Top News Today

Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in


Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.