On September 10, the Court ruled that the appellant had failed to establish any statutory disqualification or patent illegality in Vidyashankar’s appointment warranting issuance of a writ of quo warranto.
“It is not enough for a petitioner merely to assert that the selection was irregular or that another person was more meritorious. What is required to be established is that the incumbent is holding the office without lawful authority. That essential requirement has not been satisfied in the present case,” the Bench said.
The Court observed that proceedings of a constitutional court cannot be permitted to be used as a forum for ventilating personal grievances, settling individual scores or furthering personal interests and egos.
It added that the timing of the proceedings was of significance as the latest challenge had been filed nearly three years after the original appointment and after the earlier challenge had travelled to the Supreme Court.
The Court emphasised that proceedings for quo warranto require the petitioner to establish that the incumbent is holding a public office without lawful authority.
It explained the jurisdiction cannot be used to conduct a comparative assessment of candidates or determine whether another candidate would have been more suitable.
“The scope of the inquiry is only restricted to ‘eligibility’ and not the ‘suitability’ of the candidate holding public office,” it added.
The Court therefore held that even assuming the petitioner was entitled to invoke quo warranto jurisdiction, no case had been made out for issuing the writ.