Sakina Tashrifwala
Published on: November 10, 2022 at 21:23 IST
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court rejected a petition that contested the nomination of former Chief Justice Rajan Gogoi to the Council of States in the Upper House of Parliament.
The plea was dismissed by a bench made up of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and A.S. Oka, who noted that it lacked merit.
“Sorry, we don’t see any merit.”
Opening his case on the subject of qualifying requirements was the petitioner’s attorney.
Adding his opinion, Justice Kaul stated:
“Who, you, will determine eligibility?”
The petitioner was pursuing the petition for publicity reasons, the judge said.
“It’s a publicity-seeking situation.”
The Counsel then went on to support his claim by citing Article 80 of the Constitution, and Justice Kaul added:
“You should be grateful that there are no fees associated with this.”
Background
The argument sought the issuance of a writ of quo warranto against the respondent (Gogoi), requesting that he demonstrate the authority, credentials, and title by which he holds the membership by nomination under Article 80 (1) (a) read with (3) of the Constitution and, following an investigation, removing him from the membership with or without retroactive effect.
Additionally, it was requested that the announcement of Gogoi’s nomination, which was published in the Official Gazette of India – Extraordinary – Part II – Section 3 – Sub section (ii) on March 16, 2020, and the announcement made in accordance with Section 71 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, be revoked.
Ranjan Gogoi, the former Chief Justice of India, has been nominated to serve in the Upper House’s Council of States.
On March 16, 2020, the President of India announced his nomination in a notice that was published in the Indian Official Gazette.
Following his appointment in October 2018, he served as India’s 46th Chief Justice. As of November 17, 2019, he retired.
According to the petition submitted by social worker and Advocate Satish S. Kambiye, the respondent has made NO contribution to social and cultural activities, literary, artistic, or scientific accomplishments, or other special interests, and his biodata is not listed as having written any books or published any articles.
At the very least, the respondent has not provided any information on the website regarding his unique expertise in literature, science, art, or social work.
In the case of the petitioner, Article 80 (1) (a) gave the President the authority to propose twelve candidates for the Council of States, in accordance with Article 80 (3), which states that the candidates must have special knowledge or practical experience in literature, science, art, or social service.
In light of this, the petition contended that the nomination was invalid and unlawful because the respondent had failed to satisfy the prerequisite requirement for nomination under Article 80 (1) (a) read with (3) of the Constitution.
In addition, the petitioner had made a request for information under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, to the Central Public Information Officer, President of India, New Delhi, following the nomination of the respondent.
The Ministry of Home Affairs, CS Division, Government of India, New Delhi, received the RTI application for review.
It is argued that the petitioner didn’t receive any information on the evidence the President used to determine the respondent’s eligibility in the reply they received on July 24.
“According to the evidence, the respondent is ineligible to be nominated as a member of the Council of States under Article 80 (1) (a) read with (3) of the constitution since he has no specific expertise in, or practical experience with, the fields of literature, science, art, or social service. He took over the position or nomination. Therefore, it is essential that he be expelled from the Parliamentary Council of States.”
The argument further cited Supreme Court decisions that established that when an appointment violates statutory regulations, a writ of quo warranto may be issued.
In order to suspend the force, effect, and operation of the notification issued in the Official Gazette of India notifying the President’s nomination, it was requested that a pass ad-interim order may be passed in the form of a stay order.