Karunakaran v Constitutional Appointment Authority (MC 111/2016) [2016] SCSC 995 (6 December 2016)

Karunakaran v Constitutional Appointment Authority (MC 111/2016) [2016] SCSC 995 (6 December 2016)

The application fails both the good faith and arguability tests required for leave to proceed with judicial review. The CAA, as an independent constitutional body, is not subject to the Supreme Court's supervisory jurisdiction under the relevant rules. There is no constitutional or legal requirement for the CAA to hold a preliminary hearing before appointing a tribunal. The application is premature as no final decision on removal has been made, and the petitioner will have the opportunity to be heard during the tribunal proceedings.

Citation
[2016] SCSC 995
Parties
Petitioner: Duraikaran Karunakaran; Respondent: The Constitutional Appointment Authority
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
6 December 2016
Case Number
MC 111/2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Application for Leave to Proceed With Judicial Review
Outcome
Leave to proceed with judicial review declined.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Supervisory Jurisdiction, Removal of Judges, Due Process, Natural Justice
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Supervisory Jurisdiction Removal of Judges Due Process Natural Justice

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Duraikaran Karunakaran

Petitioner

The Constitutional Appointment Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Application for Leave to Proceed With Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for judicial review was made in good faith and is arguable
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court has supervisory jurisdiction over the Constitutional Appointments Authority (CAA)
  3. 3 Whether the CAA was required to hold a preliminary hearing before appointing a tribunal under Article 134(2) of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

The application fails both the good faith and arguability tests required for leave to proceed with judicial review. The CAA, as an independent constitutional body, is not subject to the Supreme Court's supervisory jurisdiction under the relevant rules. There is no constitutional or legal requirement for the CAA to hold a preliminary hearing before appointing a tribunal. The application is premature as no final decision on removal has been made, and the petitioner will have the opportunity to be heard during the tribunal proceedings.

Court Disposition

Leave to proceed with judicial review declined.

Orders

  • Application for leave to proceed is refused.
  • Costs to follow the suit.