Explanation for the defects notified by the Registry

MOST URGENT

MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA 

Advocate

101, Gundecha Chambers, Nagindas Master Rd, Kala Ghoda, Fort, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400001 

E-mail: mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com Mob:9820535428

10.11.2022

To, 

The Registrar,

Supreme Court of India,

New Delhi. 

Sir, 

Sub: Mathews J. Nedumpara v. The Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India W.P (diary) no. 35794 of 2022- Explanation for the defects notified by the Registry at Serial nos. 4 and 5 – reg.

1. The Registry of the Supreme Court has notified 6 defects of which, except for Nos. 4 and 5, have been cured/rectified. 

Defect no. 4

2. Defect no. 4 is “In Person to clarify the maintainability of prayer G, H and I in view of the subject of the instant petition”. The maintainability of the prayers is a matter falling in the exclusive province of the Hon’ble Court. If the maintainability could be decided by the Registry, then there would not be any need for a court at all. The objection is wholly unmaintainable. Be that as it may, I wish to make it clear that the Registry has not whatsoever indicated the reasons why they consider the prayer G, H and I are not maintainable. I am left with no option than to deduce what it could possibly be.

3. Explanation with regard to Prayer “G”- In jurisprudence, a judicial enquiry falls into two categories: a) concerning the jurisdiction of the Court and b) the merits of the actual controversy. So far as jurisprudence is concerned, there are two kinds of issues, “issues going to the jurisdiction” to borrow an expression of Lord Reid in Anisminic v. Foreign Compensation Commission, (1969) 2 AC 147, and “issues within the jurisdiction”. “Jurisdiction is a verbal coat of many colours” said Justice K.K. Mathew. A suit or proceedings may be barred by cause of action estoppel, nay, res judicata. A suit or proceedings may be barred by limitation/delay, or may be barred by monetary or territorial limits. These questions of jurisdiction are called substantive and adjectival, respectively. So far as the Petitioner/litigants are concerned, the right to institute a petition under Article 32 in itself is considered to be a fundamental right. A court considering a petition under Article 32, as is the case of a Civil Court, is duty bound to adjudicate all questions concerning jurisdiction, whether substantive or adjectival.

4. Since the Registry has not given any indication as to what is on its mind as to the nature of the objection, to repeat, I am forced to make a wild guess. The only thing that comes to my mind is whether the Registry assumes “prayers G, H and I” to be barred by the doctrine of res judicata/estoppel. Assuming that is the case, the Petitioners assert prayers are not barred by res judicata. 

5. The core of the doctrine of res judicata is the adjudication of a lis on its merits, affording the parties concerned a full opportunity to be heard adhering to the natural justice, to adduce evidence and argue their case. If there is no decision on the merits, the doctrine of res judicata has no application at all. The petitions preferred by Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 seeking a declaration that the NJAC judgment is void/review of the same was dismissed, in chambers, without hearing the Petitioners, by way of cyclostyle, brief, cryptic order. There is absolutely no bar of the instant petition by virtue of the doctrine of res judicata. To repeat, in the earlier proceedings nothing was decided on its merits, nor were the Petitioners even heard. 

6. Explanation with regard to Prayer “H”- The objection that prayer “H” is not maintainable is wholly unfounded. Prayer “H” is for a declaration that the rule that a curative petition is maintainable only upon being supported by a certificate of a Senior Advocate is violative of Article 14. The said rule has resulted in denial of the fundamental right of the Petitioners to file a curative petition aggrieved by the dismissal of their review petition. 

7. Explanation with regard to Prayer “I”- The explanation offered above for prayer “G” equally apply for the objections concerning prayer “I”. To repeat, had the Supreme. Court heard the petition seeking review of the NJAC preferred by Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and rejected the same offering reasons, then, probably, the doctrine of res judicata would have applied. The Court did not hear Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 or record their arguments on the merits of the NJAC issue. The Petitioners, therefore, are not barred by the doctrine of res judicata/estoppel. 

8. Though I have given a separate explanation for each prayer, it was not necessary at all. Whether a declaration ought to be sought or not is the province of the petitioner/plaintiff, and whether to grant it or not is in the province of the Court. The Registry has no role whatsoever with regard to pure questions of law. 

9. As aforesaid, at any rate, these issues are substantial questions of pure jurisprudence, which with all respect to the officers of the Registry, the humble Petitioners submit to be beyond the scope of scrutiny of the Registry. 

Defect no. 5 

10. Defect no. 5 is “in Person to further clarify regarding Respondent no. 5 to 14 as to whether they are necessary parties as clarification at Para 6 Page 8 of the petition is incomplete”. The NJAC case was about the constitutionality of the Constitution 99th (Amendment) Act and the NJAC Act. The said Acts were passed by the Parliament unanimously. It was the will of the people. No Court or authority has power to undo it. But the SCAORA got it quashed behind the backs of the people of this country. They did not bring on the party array any of the political parties, not to speak of even the ruling BJP and the Congress, the principal opposition party. Not a single Member of Parliament was on the party array, the SCAORA played a fraud on the people by obtaining a judgment behind the back of the people of this country. If SCAORA’s petition was assumed to be maintainable, then the principles applicable to a representative suit/class action ought to have been followed. A few lawyers were able to get the NJAC Act quashed because they were powerful. The petitioner/plaintiff is the dominus litus. He/she is the master of the proceedings. It is for him/her to decide who is to be on the party array. If he/she fails to bring the necessary parties on the party array, his/her petition/proceedings is rendered void ab initio. The Registry has no objection that the Petitioners have failed to bring on the party array all the necessary parties. On the contrary, it has objected to the Petitioners bringing the State Governments and the major political parties on the party array. If at all the Petitioner can be faulted, it could only be for not bringing in all the State Governments on the party array. The Petitioner has craved the leave of the Hon’ble Court to do so in due course. The objection of the Registry on this count is, therefore, misconceived. 

11. This explanation, the Petitioners, in all humility, hope would satisfy the Registry and that the petition will be numbered in no delay. 

With kind regards, 

Yours Sincerely, 

MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA

9820535428

mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com