ALSO READHigh Court to hear petition against disqualification of 18 MLAs Pak Court seeks CII's opinion on petition against death by hanging Sharif family files petition to review Supreme Court's Panamagate verdict Petition seeking Pak Foreign Minister's disqualification filed in Islamabad High Court Islamabad High Court rejects Pak FM's petition challenging indictment in corruption case
The Supreme Court on Wednesday disposed a petition related to delay in finalisation of memorandum of procedure for appointments to the higher judiciary and recalled an earlier order to consider a plea on MoP delay.
Disposing the petition by lawyer R. P. Luthra, a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A. K. Sikri and Justice Amitava Roy recalled the October 27 order by a two-Judge bench relating to delay in the finalisation of the memorandum of procedure.
Recalling the October 27 order, the court said that "as far as the other prayers are concerned, there was no necessity or need to proceed with the same ..." as it referred to top court judgments striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission and later on the MOP framing.
The order passed on Wednesday is contrary to one passed on October 27 by a bench of Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit which said: "We need to consider the prayer that there should be no further delay in the finalisation of MOP in the larger public interest.
Even though no time limit was fixed by this court for finalisation of the MOP, the issue cannot linger on for an indefinite period. The order of this court is dated December 16, 2015, and thus more than a year and 10 months have already gone by in finalising the MoP."
The two--Judge bench had also issued a notice to the Attorney General and appointed senior counsel K. V. Vishwanathan as amicus curiae.
Referring to another prayer by petitioner-in-person R. P. Luthra, the bench on Wednesday said: "Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and further taking note of the relief clause, we have no iota of doubt that the petitioner had sought primarily for mitigation of an individual grievance which the two-Judge bench had correctly declined to entertain."
Disposing the petition, the court said: "In view of the aforesaid analysis, there is no justification or warrant to keep the special leave petitions pending and the same are, accordingly, disposed".
Accordingly, the order passed on October 27 relating to other aspects, barring non-entertainment of the special leave petitions, stand recalled.
(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)