Bombay High Court
Rohini M. Amin And 4 Ors. vs Union Of India And 16 Ors. on 9 September, 2025
2025:BHC-OS:15573-DB
BDP 907 WP-1909-2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1909 OF 2019
Rohini M. Amin and Others .. Petitioners
Vs.
Union of India and Others .Respondents
...
Mr. Akhilesh Nair a/w Ms. Hemali Merva (through VC) i/b Mr. R.R.
Nair for the petitioners.
Ms. P.H. Kantharia, G.P. a/w Ms. Rita Joshi, AGP for respondent
no.9.
...
CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
DATE : 9th SEPTEMBER 2025.
P.C. :
Mr. Akhilesh Nair, the learned vice counsel who appeared in the morning session and sought adjournment on the ground that Mr. Mathews Nedumpara, the learned arguing counsel for the petitioners is engaged in a matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, makes a statement in the Court after recess that Mr. Mathews Nedumpara , the learned counsel is on his way to Mumbai. On the other hand, Ms. Hemali Merva, the learned vice counsel who has joined the Court proceedings through virtual mode states that Mr. Mathews Nedumpara, the learned counsel is presently engaged in the Supreme Court.
2. Taking note of these two contradictory statements made by the learned lawyers practicing in this Court which is a ground to dismiss this writ petition [refer, "Nafar Chandra Jute Mills Ltd. v.
1 ::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2025 22:19:49 :::BDP 907 WP-1909-2019.doc United Bank of India and Others", (2000) 9 SCC 545], we decline to adjourn hearing of this writ petition on the ground of unavailability of Mr. Mathews Nedumpara, the learned counsel.
3. We have gone through the prayers in this writ petition which are formulated in the following manner:-
"(a) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Union of India to consider enacting a law or even an Ordinance considering the urgency of the matter, requiring Respondent Nos. 1,3,4,5 & 9 to notify the vacancies in the august office of the Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, invite applications from those who are eligible and desirous to be appointed, invite recommendations and references from members of the Bar, Bar Associations, sitting and retired Judges, political parties and other stakeholders, scrutinize and shortlist candidates found eligible, invite objections, if any, from the public at large and then make the appointments, which will render the finalization of the Memorandum of Procedure, a mere executive instrument, irrelevant and substitution thereof by an Act of Parliament which will mean incorporation of all the suggestions made by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the NJAC case; so too the matters which the Supreme Court in the NJAC case failed to take notice of;
(b) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Union of India to file a Review Petition seeking review of the judgments in Judges-2, Judges-3 and the NJAC cases, particularly taking notice of the fact that petitions seeking review of the judgments in Judges-2 and the NJAC cases, namely, Review Petition Nos. (D) No. 6578/2017 & (D) No.29668/2018 are pending adjudication before the Supreme Court;
(c) Declare that "equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws" as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India takes within its ambit the right to equal opportunities in all walks of life, including selection and appointment to the Constitutional office of Judges of the High Courts and Supreme Court and any system of selection and appointment of Judges, which would deny equal opportunity to all those who are eligible and deserving to be considered along with others equally placed is unconstitutional and void and the collegium system of appointment, in so far as it denies equal 2 ::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2025 22:19:49 ::: BDP 907 WP-1909-2019.doc opportunities to the first generation lawyers, the sons and daughters of taxi drivers, farmers, fishermen, rickshaw pullers, daily wagers, teachers et al, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution;
(d) Without prejudice to prayer (c) above and in furtherance thereof, declare that the concept of equal opportunities in the matter of selection and appointment to the august office of the Chief Justice of India and Judges of the Supreme Court and Chief Justice and Judges of the High Courts and, in particular, this Hon'ble Court, mandates advertisement notification of the vacancies in the august office of the Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, invite applications from those who are eligible and desirous to be appointed, invite recommendations and references from members of the Bar. Bar Associations, sitting and retired Judges, political parties and other stakeholders, scrutinize and shortlist candidates found eligible.
invite objections, if any, from the public at large and then make the appointments, which alone will afford due representation to the first generation lawyers, who are equally qualified and eligible as that of the kith and kin, nephews and juniors of sitting and former Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, so too of celebrated lawyers, Chief Ministers, Governors et al, and a few first generation lawyers who are all politically connected or are close to big industrial houses;
(e) Declare that failure in the filling up of vacancies in the august office of Judges of the High Court of Bombay has not merely meant denial of opportunities to the first generation lawyers, the sons and daughters of taxi drivers, farmers, fishermen, rickshaw pullers, daily wagers, teachers et al, but has also denied right to access to justice; so too denial of speedy justice inasmuch as the 26 vacancies as against the total strength of 68 Judges as on today in the High Court of Bombay has meant literal shutting down of the Honorable High Court;
(f) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 1,3,4,5,6 & 8 to cause notification of the vacancies in the august office of the Judge of the High Court of Bombay and invite applications from those who are eligible and desirous to be appointed, invite recommendations and references from members of the Bar, Bar Associations, sitting and retired Judges, political parties and other stakeholders, scrutinize and shortlist candidates found eligible, invite objections, if any, from the public at large and fill up the entire vacancies, both of Permanent and Additional Judges;
3 ::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2025 22:19:49 :::BDP 907 WP-1909-2019.doc
(g) pass such further and other orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may require."
4. Quite apparently, the prayers made in this writ petition are highly objectionable and, least to say, tend to create controversy in the legal system.
5. We, therefore, decline to entertain this writ petition and, without making any further comment, Writ Petition No.1909 of 2019 is dismissed.
[GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Digitally signed by BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2025.09.19 12:05:37 +0530 4 ::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2025 22:19:49 :::