Supreme Court: Hearing upon a challenge to the constitutional validity of the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act (NJAC), 2014 and Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, a three Judge bench of A.R. Dave, J. Chelameswar and M.B. Lokur, JJ., observed that, since the case at hand involves substantial questions of law with regard to the interpretation of the Constitution therefore it was directed that the case should be referred to a larger Bench for consideration.
The impugned statutes that have caused a great deal of hue and cry recently, came under the scanner as the petitioners allege that the impugned legislations would alter the very Basic Structure of the Constitution. The petitioners represented by Prashant Bhushan, P.S. Narasimha, ASG and other noted counsels, put forth the contention that the matter should be referred to the five- Judge Constitution Bench as according to Article 145(3) of the Constitution, for the issue raises substantial questions of law with regard to interpretation of the Constitution. The petitioners also prayed for an interim order putting a stay upon the enforcement of the NJAC Act, till the matter is sub- judice. The respondent countered the petitioners by arguing that no cause of action has arisen, as the NJAC Act has not yet come into force.
The Court however refused to judge the case on merits and did not grant any interim relief to the petitioners stating that they are free to make a prayer for interim relief before a larger Bench. Supreme Court Advocates -on- Record Association v.
