An association of lawyers in Mumbai has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay high court’s dismissal of its petition seeking action against vice president Jagdeep Dhankhar and Union law minister Kiren Rijiju for their remarks on the judiciary and the collegium system for appointment of judges.

The Bombay Lawyers Association, in their special leave petition before the top court, said that the duo have “disqualified themselves” from holding constitutional posts by showing a “lack of faith” in the constitution and attacking its institution, i.e., the Supreme Court, “and showing scant regard for the law laid down by it”.

While it is unclear which statements the petition is referring to, Rijiju has repeatedly criticised the collegium system. Dhankhar, meanwhile, has questioned the landmark Kesavananda Bharati (1973) verdict, which established the basic structure doctrine.

The Bombay high court, while dismissing the Bombay Lawyers Association’s PIL on February 9, said that the credibility of the Supreme Court is “sky-high” and cannot be “eroded or impinged by the statements of individuals”. The court also said “fair criticism” is permissible and that the VP and the law minister cannot be removed in the manner suggested by the Association.

The petition sought action under Article 226 of the constitution, which gives high courts the ability to issue instructions, orders, and writs to any person or authority, including the government. It also sought orders to restrain Dhankhar from discharging duty as the vice president, and Rijiju from discharging his duty as a Union cabinet minister.

The Association claims that the duo launched a “frontal attack” on the Supreme Court in the most derogatory language, without any recourse available under the constitutional scheme to change the status quo as per law.

“This kind of unbecoming behaviour by persons holding constitutional posts is lowering the majesty of the Supreme Court in the eye of public at large and is exciting dissatisfaction,” the Association claimed, accusing them of “criminal contempt”.