NEW DELHI: A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court is having a difficult time keeping at bay a growing number of advocates who want to intervene in the proceedings challenging the constitutional validity of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act.

On Wednesday and Thursday, advocates from various parts of the country - from Jammu and Kashmir to Maharashtra - kept pleading with the bench of Justices A R Dave, J Chelameswar and Madan B Lokur to permit them to have their say. And the advocate community appears sharply divided on the issue.

The 12,000 member-strong Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), led by senior advocate Dushyant Dave, lent its support to the NJAC saying the collegium system was illegal. Dave termed the collegium as a product of the apex court's wrong interpretation of constitutional provisions on appointment of judges in the 1990s.

Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi pointed out that the petition was filed by Supreme Court Advocates On Record Association, every one of whose nearly 400 members are also part of SCBA. "Does it mean on one hand they oppose the NJAC and on the other they support it?" he asked.

Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Fali S Nariman advised the AG not to be so aggressive on a weak point and clarified that the petitioner association had decided to challenge the NJAC Act in a general body meeting whereas SCBA had resolved through an executive body meeting to support the new system for appointment of judges.

But one of the many advocates desiring to intervene in the proceedings, Mathews Nedumpara, created a flutter. His writ petition questioned the opaque collegium system, and alleged that it had only promoted the appointment of the kin of judges of the Supreme Court and high courts as judges of the higher judiciary.

He reeled out statistics to support his allegation but was stopped from doing so. The court said, "There are still technical issues relating to his arguing in person as his advocate-on-record has not yet been discharged. Just because the court is permitting him to argue, he cannot take advantage and submit irrelevant issues."

Nedumpara said he had the requisite qualification to become a judge but had no avenue to do so as the vacancies in high courts were never advertised nor did the collegium ever seek applications for vacant posts.

As the question of technicality prevented many advocates, including senior advocate Bhim Singh, from advancing their arguments, former solicitor general and senior advocate T R Andhyarujina escaped the scrutiny mainly because of his erudition and expertise in constitutional matters.

Though the bench asked him "whether he represented any party", Andyarujina parried it by saying he wanted to assist the court in this important matter. The former SG lent his support to the Centre and said the NJAC should be given a chance to be implemented.

"Only when it works will its shortcomings or benefits come to be highlighted," he said. The bench said it would conclude hearing on Tuesday on three issues - whether the writ petitions were maintainable; if maintainable, should these be referred to a five-judge bench; and, whether stay should be granted on the NJAC Act?