SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION - random thoughts.

A reader from Visakhapatnam writes:-  He saw a news item - Justice NV Ramana was appointed Judge of AP High Court - SC collegium had twice rejected his candidature - but he was appointed as judge at the instance of Ram Jethmalani,then Law Minister - Now one Manohar Reddy challenged this appointment.  Ram Jethmalani appeared for the petitioner as Sr. Advocate.  -   SC bench objected to this appearance by Ram Jethmalani as he was himself a party to the appointment of Ramana etc. Now Shanti Bushan has come forward to present case against Justice NV Ramana.

Readers doubt -  SC did not allow Ram Jethmalani on the ground that Jethmalani was a party to appointment of NV Ramana as a Judge - As such he can not now

 plead as lawyer against the appointment - 

Similarly LIC having taken 'decision' to rationalise D.R. formula, updation of pension etc. can not pursue the case to annul their own decision - Since GOI remained indifferent and did not "raise the matter at SC level also,they should not be allowed to be drawn into the case" -  Matter should be treated as "abdication of authority or waiver of authority by the Government." -  These are some of the arguments of this reader ... - Copies of his mail have been marked to Shri Asthana, Shri RB Kishore and a few others. 

Comments on the above points...

1.  There is no SC judgment - only a comment during the court proceedings.  2.  Facts and circumstances not similar and as such cannot be cited. Remember, Ram Jethmalani could have even challenged these remarks saying that as a lawyer he was entitled to appear on behalf of any individual.  But moral grounds prevented him from making such arguments. 3.  In a particular case, a SC bench of Justice RV Ravindran entertained a particular petition for 19 months.  For certain reasons when Justice RV Ravindran recused himself from hearing the case,a new bench was constituted which in the first hearing itself dismissed the petition, saying that the matter should be taken up in the High Court in the appropriate manner.  3.  So what is a good case for a bench for 19 months was no case for another bench and they dismissed the petition in the first sitting itself. 4. Although Shri Asthana  is taking up a case of vital interest to the LIC pensioners, a senior advocate cannot be told of law points.  5.  SC has powers to entertain any appeal through SLP as we know.  6. When questions of Central Government powers are involved, SC may not easily reject SLP.  7. That Punjab and Haryana HC has passed a judgment in favour LIC pensioners will not make any difference.As for abdication of authority, can the state abdicate its authority can be another point for litigation even if this bench allows.  In the result,it is felt,  the instance cited is not of vital value.

(These are some arguments.  Those who feel otherwise may please send their comments for a discussion.  Through discussion alone, more light and more  points may emerge which may give further insight and clarity to the subject.  - Editor. )

.