Top Stories

Law Student seeks leave of SC to intervene in #NJAC matter

28 Jun 2015 1:50 PM GMT
Law Student seeks leave of SC to intervene in #NJAC matter
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

Vibhor Anand, a second year law student has filed an application before the Supreme Court seeking the leave of the Court to intervene in the writ petition filed by the Supreme Court Advocate on Record Association challenging the Constitutional validity of the 99th Amendment Act, 2014 and National Judicial Commission Act, 2014.

In his application, a copy of which has been accessed by “Live Law”, Mr. Vibhor Anand describing his credentials, says that in his individual capacity he “has filed Public Interest Litigation petition in this Hon’ble court  bearing no, W.P. (C) 30535/2014 titled as Vibhor Anand Vs. Union of India & others and another W.P. (C) 282/2015 titled as Vibhor Anand Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi.  Besides this the applicant has also filed two Public Interest Litigations in Delhi High Court bearing no. W.P. (C) 2400/2015 and W.P. (C) 5757/2015 which are pending adjudication before the Hon’ble High Court, and applicant has also actively worked under the able guidance of his father Sh. V.K. Anand, Advocate and has assisted his father in a number of high profile cases like the December 16 Gang Rape Case and the PIL against the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid which is pending before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.”

Mr. Vibhor Anand submits in his application that he was filing the Intervening application “in public interest for an extensive interpretation on the Scope of National Judicial Appointments Commission under Article 124(2A) of Constitution of India and Section 12(2)(J) of the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014.”

Mr. Anand contends that the Scope of 99th Amendment and NJAC Act, 2014 with respect to Article 124 (2A) is silent and requires Interpretation, and has raised the following substantial question of law to be answered by the Apex court:

“Whether the National Judicial Appointments Commission would be empowered to Determine the age of a Judge of the Supreme Court under Article 124 (2A) and in terms of Section 12(2)J) of the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 ?”

He has pointed out that he was approaching the Apex Court to intervene in the aforesaid Writ Petition “these questions of law have not been raised ever before and the aforesaid question of law will not only impact the public at large, but also hugely impact the Rule of Law and Administration of Justice.”

Author tweets @ajithvakil

Next Story