A nine-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice SP Bharucha had begun hearing the case on October 7. President KR Narayanan had made a reference on July 27 to the apex court under Article 143 for interpretation of law to dispel doubts relating to the procedure involved in the appointments of judges to the apex court and chief justices and judges to various high courts and their transfers. Other judges on the bench were, Justices MK Mukherjee, SB Majmudar, Sujata V Manohar, GT Nanavati, S Saghir Ahmad, K Venkataswami and BN Kirpal.

Concluding the arguments, Attorney General Soli J Sorabjee submitted before the court that any recommendations made by the CJI regarding appointment or transfer of a judge recommended without following the norms and guidelines laid down by an earlier judgment would not be binding on the executive.

Apart from the AG,others who made submissions before the court included Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association, the Supreme Court Bar Association, various high courts.

Following the conclusion of the arguments, the court directed that the original files pertaining to the correspondence between the former CJI Justice MM Punchhi and the government be returned to the government.

The bench discouraged advocates from widening the scope of the reference by saying ``we do not wish to go one inch beyond the scope of the reference.''

When various high courts through their counsel raised certain problems faced by them, the bench said, ``we are not sitting here as a grievance committee.''

One of the suggestions proffered by the AG was that the CJI, in the event of an adverse intelligence report against a person considered for appointment, should confront him with the report and seek explanation as the reports were not always reliable. But the bench was of the opinion that it should be left to the discretion of the CJIwhether to confront the nominee with the reports or not.

Appearing for the Gujarat high court, senior advocate Arun Jaitley supported the view of wider consultation but said if the judges failed to arrive at a consensus, CJI should not send the proposal for appointment or transfer to executive.

The 1993 judgment, on a petition filed by Supreme Court advocates-on-record association, gave primacy to the opinion of the Chief Justice of India formed in consultation with two senior-most judges of the apex court in regard to appointment of judges and their transfers.

Earlier, the court had made it clear that the apex court's 1993 judgment laying down guidelines regarding appointment of judges has become the law of the land and it will neither review nor reconsider the judgment but adjudicate the reference in the light of the judgment.