The Judicial Service Commission's (JSC's) decision not to go ahead with an inquiry into Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe's conduct undermined the public's trust in the Judiciary, the High Court in Pretoria heard on Thursday.

Counsel for the legal advocacy body Freedom Under Law (FUL), and former Education Minister Kader Asmal, who joined as a friend of the court, argued that the public's trust could only be restored by a full public enquiry.

FUL was seeking to set aside decisions by the JSC, that decided to drop an enquiry into Hlophe in July 2009 and a decision by the majority of the JSC in August last year saying that the evidence did not justify a finding that Hlophe was guilty of misconduct. The matter, it said, was "treated as finalised".

Hlophe faced a preliminary JSC inquiry after allegedly trying to influence two Constitutional Court judges in a matter relating to President Jacob Zuma.

The JSC decided to hold a preliminary inquiry, instead of a formal inquiry into the complaint by 13 Constitutional Court judges, and his counter complaint against the judges.

The Judges accused Hlophe of trying to improperly influence judgments in pending judgments involving Jacob Zuma before he became President.

Hlophe in turn accused the judges of violating his constitutional rights by publishing their complaint before lodging it with the JSC and before giving him a hearing.

The JSC and Hlophe maintained in court on Thursday that FUL had no legal interest in the matter and that it would be a waste of time and money to re-open the investigation, especially where all of the complainants wanted to put the controversy behind them.

Advocate Wim Trengove SC, for FUL, submitted that Hlophe had accused the judges, and particularly the Chief Justice and Deputy Chief Justice of crass, pervasive and sustained dishonesty.

"If these accusations were well-founded, then the guilty Justices including the Chief Justice and Deputy Chief Justice were unfit for judicial office," he said.

"But if they were unfounded, the mere making of these accusations rendered Judge Hlophe unfit for judicial office."

Trengove asked what it said of the judiciary if its leadership was guilty of the abuses of which they stood accused.

"Which judges can be trusted and which of them are corrupt? How do they administer justice?" he asked.

"Do they do it honestly and without fear, favour or prejudice or do they abuse and manipulate their powers for ulterior purposes?"

He said the standing of the judiciary and the administration of justice would suffer irreparable harm if these questions were not credibly answered.

"The only way in which the public trust in the judiciary can be restored is by an open and public inquiry which leaves no stone unturned to find the truth, vindicate the innocent and condemn the guilty."

Trengove argued that the personal views and interest of the parties involved were not what mattered, as the case was about the independence of the judiciary.

Hlophe insisted that there was no evidence that his conduct could even remotely be regarded as gross misconduct and that it would not have been appropriate for the matter to have been referred to a formal hearing, including cross-examination.

The application continues before Judge Peter Mabuse.