CJI Chandrachud objects to claim that ‘people are saying SC is not hearing ordinary lawyers’

The arguments went on for a while, after which the court moved on to the next case. Then the counsel came up with the submission that “people are saying that the Supreme Court is not hearing ordinary lawyers”.

The CJI then remarked, “I do not want to join issue on this. But the secretary general informs that there is an email written by you complaining that the Supreme Court should not be hearing Constitution bench matters because these are useless matters and the SC should be hearing non-constitutional matters”.

“Ordinary people’s cases,” said Nedumpara.

The CJI added, “I just want to tell you. You don’t seem to be in ignorance what Constitution bench matters are. Constitution bench matters also involve some of them an interpretation of the Constitution. You may think that Article 370, the petition, is not relevant. I don’t think that’s what the government or the petitioners in that case feel. I wanted to tell you something more important. All Constitution bench matters are not necessarily an interpretation of the Constitution. If you came and sat in our court the day before yesterday, you would find that we were dealing with a matter that would affect the livelihood of hundreds of drivers all across the country.

“The issue was whether a person who holds a licence to drive a light motor vehicle can drive a commercial vehicle. Our court had come to the conclusion in one way or the other, that’s on merits. So disabuse your mind that the Supreme Court is dealing with only some fancy constitutional matters which have no bearing on the lives of ordinary people. We in fact passed a very detailed order requesting the attorney-general to take instructions, saying this will have an impact on the social sector. Which means the livelihood of a very large number of small drivers who depend on it for their livelihood. So please disabuse your mind…”

Nedumpara said, “I am not against the court hearing matters involving the fundamental rights of people. I am only against the court hearing matters of public interest behind the backs of the people, matters of…legislative policy without hearing the public at large. When Your Lordships pass an order I am not heard, the public is not heard.”

The CJI then told Nedumpara, “Even there you are not wrong. In the Article 370 matter, we had groups of individual intervenors who came and addressed us from the Valley, individual intervenors who had a contrary view point on this side. So we have been hearing the voice of the nation”.

“And the classic case of NJAC”, Nedumpara added.

Nedumpara, who has filed a plea challenging the collegium system of appointing judges, has been complaining that his petition is yet to come up for hearing.