The Bombay High Court dismissed the PIL filed for seeking that the conduct of Respondent No. 1 & 2 has disqualified them from holding any constitutional posts of Vice President and Minister of the Union Cabinet respectively.
A division bench of this Court comprising Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice S.V. Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V. Marne enunciated that the constitutional authorities could not be removed by exercising the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226. Further, the bench remarked that the credibility of SC is sky-high which can’t be eroded or impinged by the statements of individuals.
Brief Facts:
This PIL was filed for the following relief-
- To declare that the conduct of the Respondent No. 1 & 2 have disqualified themselves for holding any constitutional posts of Vice President and Minister of the Union Cabinet respectively by expressing lack of faith in the Constitution of India and the law established by their behaviour and utterances made in public.
- To restrain the Respondent No.1 from discharging his duty as Vice President of India and Respondent No.2 from discharging his duty as cabinet Minister of Union of India.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have disqualified themselves from holding the constitutional post by showing a lack of faith in the Constitution of India by their conduct and utterances made in public and by attacking its institutions, including Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and showing scant regard for the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
It was further submitted that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are also guilty of committing contempt of Court by lowering the authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The authorities who are responsible for taking action against Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have failed in their duty, as such, this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may exercise its powers.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned Counsels for the Respondents submitted that the present PIL is filed for publicity purposes. Further, it was contended that the Vice President could not be removed by orders under Article 226 of the Constitution. The reliance was placed upon the apex court's judgment in the case of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharasthra & Ors. 3 to submit that the PILs are to be admitted with great care.
Observations of the Court:
The Court finds that the Petitioner seeks disqualification of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 holding a constitutional post on the ground that their utterances have shaken the public faith in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Constitution. In this regard, it was remarked that “The credibility of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is skyhigh. It cannot be eroded or impinged by the statements of individuals”. Further, it was held that the constitutional authorities could not be removed in the manner as suggested by the Petitioner, and fair criticism of the judgment is permissible.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Petition as they did not find it a fit case to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in entertaining the PIL.
Case Title: Bombay Lawyers Association v. Jagdeep Dhankar and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice S.V. Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Case no.: PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) NO. 3247 OF 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: - Mr. Ahmad Abdi with Mehmood Abdi I/b. Eknath Dhokale and Mohammad Abdi
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Anil C. Singh, Additional Solicitor General a/w. Mr. Aditya Thakkar, Ms. Savita Ganoo, Mr. D. P. Singh, Ms. Smita Thakur, Mr. Chaitnya Chavan and Mr. Pranav Thakur I/b. Mr. A. A. Ansari
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
