News Alerts
prev next

Tennydard files fresh appeal

Mukul’s ST status case: Recent SC order challenged

SHILLONG: Tennydard Marak, who is pursuing the ST status case of Chief Minister Mukul Sangma, has filed a fresh appeal on November 16 against the recent order of Registrar of Supreme Court, who had rejected the review petition filed by the former.
According to Marak, earlier his writ petition was dismissed on September 18 by the Supreme Court without any hearing in violation of the principles of natural justice after about 1 year and 4 months approximately stating that the Court was not inclined to continue with these petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution.
However, Marak said that the power of judicial review conferred upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is part of the inviolable basic structure of the  Constitution.
Moreover, Article 32 is “a great and salutary safeguard for preservation of fundamental rights of the citizens. This weapon as a safeguard must be utilized and invoked by the Court with great deal of circumspection and caution”, he said.
After the dismissal of the case, Marak field an interlocutory application in the Supreme Court for appropriate directions and to recall the order of September 18 while urging the Court to hear the writ petition on merits and decided by the Court.
“However, unfortunately, the Registrar  of the Supreme Court of India in the  letter dated November 3 said that at there was no reasonable cause for entertaining the application at this stage and  also intimated that he had ordered that an  Interlocutory Application to be lodged under the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules,2013”, Marak said
The Registrar also wanted the petitioner to approach the High Court , which according to the petitioner is not viable as he had already sought the intervention of the High Court in the past.
However, the petitioner said  that  the order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 does not vest upon the  Registrar the power and jurisdiction to reject the application for directions seeking recall of the order of September18  and restoration of the writ petition
“The power and jurisdiction to recall the order and restoration of the matter lies solely with the Supreme Court. The  Registrar  has exceeded its jurisdiction by passing the order. This is an error apparent on the face of the record and the Registrar failed to appreciate that the pleadings in the matter are complete”, Marak said, while adding that his counsel was already substantially heard on the merits of the matter by the Supreme Court on March 20 this year.
However, due to paucity of time the hearing remained incomplete, Marak added.
According to him, the dismissal of the writ petition was a grave prejudice and serious miscarriage of justice.

You might also like More from author

Comments