The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition a lawyers’ forum had filed last year seeking a review of the court’s October 2015 judgment that had quashed the NJAC Act aimed at giving the executive a veto in appointments to the higher judiciary.

A five-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, rejected the plea on the grounds of delay and also on merits.

“There is a delay of 470 days in filing the present review petition, for which no satisfactory explanation has been offered. The review petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone,” the bench, which also included Justices Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph, A.M. Khanwilkar and Ashok Bhushan, said.

Review petitions have to be filed within 90 days.

“Even otherwise, we have carefully gone through the review petition and the connected papers. We do not find any merit in the same. The review petition is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits,” the bench added.

The National Lawyers’ Campaign, which had filed the plea through its general secretary Rohini M. Amin, had also sought an “open court” hearing, although review petitions are normally heard within judges’ chambers without the involvement of advocates.

“Applications seeking hearing of review petition in the open court and for permission to engage an arguing counsel stand dismissed,” the bench said in the terse November 27 order uploaded on Saturday.

The Centre has not filed any review plea so far in the matter.

Three years ago, on October 16, 2015, a five-judge constitution bench of Justices J.S. Khehar, J. Chelameshwar, Lokur, Joseph and Adarsh Goel had quashed the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act as unconstitutional.

The same bench normally hears review petitions but the composition changes if any of the judges retires. Justices Khehar, Chelameshwar, Goel and Joseph have since retired, with Justice Joseph being the last among them to superannuate on November 29.

The NLC had sought a review on the ground that the court had failed to consider the constitutional rights of the executive and the legislature, apart from the theory of separation of powers.

The 99th constitutional amendment that had introduced the NJAC had sought to replace the “collegium” system of judges appointing judges to the higher judiciary.

It proposed a role for the Union law minister and two eminent persons who could veto any appointment. There was also a provision that if two of the NJAC members opposed a name, the appointment could not go through.

The court struck down the NJAC on the ground that it compromised the independence of the judiciary.

According to the Constitution, it said, only the Chief Justice of India and a collegium of four other senior-most judges of the top court had the power to decide on transfers and elevation of judges of high courts and the Supreme Court.