1. Dispute over the retirement date of a High Court Judge based on conflicting birth dates and the validity of an administrative determination of age. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1963 Supreme(SC) 243
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
14th October, 1963
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO, K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
Himansu Kumar Bose, Appellant
Versus
Jyoti Prokash Mitter, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 485 of 1963.
1. Hon ble the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court.
2. Hon ble the Chief Justice of Patna High Court.
3. Hon able the Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court, Interveners.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. C. K. Dephtary, Attorney-General for India and Mr. S. M. Bose, Senior Advocate, (M/s. S. C. Bose, R. K. P. Shankerdass and P. K. Bose, Advocates with them), for Appellant; Respondent in Person; Mr. M. Adhikari, Advocate-General for the State of Madhya Pradesh, (Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocate, with him), for Intervener No. 1; Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, Senior Advocate, (Mr. D. P. Singh, Advocate, with him), for Intervener No. 2; Mr. J. M. Thakore, Advocate-General for the State of Gujarat, (Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate, with him), for Intervener No. 3.
Advocates:
C.K.DAFTARY, D.P.Singh, I.M.SHROFF, J.M.THAKAR, LAL NARAIN SINHA, M.ADHIKARI, P.K.BOSH, R.H.Dhebar, R.K.P.SHANKAR DAS, S.C.BOSE, S.M.BOSE
C.K.DAFTARY, D.P.Singh, I.M.SHROFF, J.M.THAKAR, LAL NARAIN SINHA, M.ADHIKARI, P.K.BOSH, R.H.Dhebar, R.K.P.SHANKAR DAS, S.C.BOSE, S.M.BOSE
Writ petitions raising significant issues, especially those affecting judicial independence or involving disputed facts in proper cases, should not be dismissed in limine; instead, a Rule Nisi should be issued to ensure a full judicial hearing and proper determination of the law.
Headnote:(A) Constitution - Art. 217(1) - Retirement age of High Court Judge - Whether the date of birth declared at the time of appointment is conclusive or can be reopened administratively - While a Judge must satisfy the constitutional requirement of not having attained the age of 60 years, the administrative determination of age by the executive in the absence of a specific legal or constitutional provision is subject to judicial review. (Paras 12, 13)
(B) Constitution - Art. 226(1) - Writ jurisdiction - Issue of Rule Nisi - Discretion of the court - Where a writ petition raises arguable issues of significance and importance, particularly those connected with the status, dignity, and independence of the judiciary, it is inappropriate to dismiss the petition in limine. (Paras 15, 22)
(C) Writ proceedings - Disputed questions of fact - In proper cases, disputed questions of fact may be tried in writ proceedings. (Para 21)
Facts of the case:
A Judge of a High Court challenged an order of retirement based on a date of birth determined administratively by the government. The Judge contended that the date of birth provided and accepted at the time of appointment should be conclusive. The trial judge dismissed the writ petition in limine, but a Special Bench of the High Court reversed this decision and directed the issuance of a Rule Nisi. The Chief Justice of the High Court appealed this reversal to the Supreme Court.
Findings of Court:
The trial judge's refusal to issue a Rule Nisi was based on unsatisfactory reasons. The competence of the executive to administratively determine the age of a High Court Judge is a matter of great importance as it relates to the status and independence of the judiciary.
Issues: Whether the Special Bench was justified in reversing the trial judge's decision to refuse the issuance of a Rule Nisi on a writ petition challenging the administrative determination of a judge's retirement age.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when a petition raises triable issues of significant importance, it should not be dismissed summarily. The issuance of a Rule Nisi is necessary to define the points of dispute and allow parties to present material evidence, especially when the matter concerns the independence of the judiciary. Furthermore, disputed questions of fact can be adjudicated within writ proceedings in appropriate cases.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Whether the government can administratively determine a judge's age and whether the trial court was justified in refusing to issue a Rule Nisi. (Para 4 , 14 , 16 )
3. The trial judge's refusal to issue a Rule Nisi was based on unsatisfactory reasoning regarding res judicata, non-joinder, and the conclusiveness of administrative decisions. (Para 15 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
4. A Rule Nisi should be issued in writ petitions raising arguable issues of significant importance, including those involving disputed questions of fact. (Para 15 , 21 , 22 )
5. Appeal dismissed; order of the Special Bench directing the issuance of a Rule Nisi upheld. (Para 22 , 25 )
6. Can a writ petition be filed against the Chief Justice of a High Court?
The court declined to decide the merits of this issue, suggesting it be determined by the High Court in the first instance, though it noted that administrative actions may be subject to Article 226. (Para 17 , 18 )
7. Can the government administratively determine the age of a High Court Judge to decide retirement?
The court observed that the competence of the Home Minister to administratively determine a judge's age is a matter of great importance connected to the status and independence of the judiciary. (Para 13 , 22 )
8. Can disputed questions of fact be tried in writ proceedings under Article 226?
Yes, in proper cases, disputed questions of fact may be tried in writ proceedings, and such issues can justify the issuance of a Rule Nisi. (Para 21 )
9. When is the issuance of a Rule Nisi justified in a writ petition?
A Rule Nisi is justified when the petition raises arguable issues of significance and importance, ensuring parties are fully heard before judicial determination. (Para 15 , 22 )
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : The short and initial question as to whether a Rule Nisi should be issued on the petition filed by the respondent Jyoti Prokash Mitter, a Judge of the Calcutta High Court, against the appellant the Chief Justice of the said High Court, has given rise to a difference of opinion amongst the Judges of the Calcutta High Court who have dealt with it. By his petition, the respondent has claimed a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or appropriate directions, order or writs under Art. 226(1) of the Constitution recalling the order passed by the appellant by which he has decided that the respondent has retired from his post as a Judge with effect from December 27, 1961. The respondent also claims an appropriate order or direction restoring to him his duties and functions as well as his rights and privileges as a Judge of the said High Court. This petition was filed by the respondent on January 2, 1962. B. N. Banerjee, J. who heard this petition held that it was not necessary to issue a Rule Nisi on it, and so, on January 3, 1962, he dismissed the petition in limine.
2. The respondent then took the matter before a Division Bench by an appeal. Mitter and Laik JJ. who constituted the Appellate Bench differed; Mitter J. held that the trial Judge was right in refusing to issue a Rule nisi, whereas Laik J. took a contrary view. On this difference between the two learned Judges, the learned Chief Justice constituted a Special Bench of three learned Judges to deal with the appeal, P. N. Mookerjee, Sankar Prasad Mitra and R. N. Dutta JJ. who constituted the Special Bench heard the matter and delivered three concurring judgements. They unanimously came to the conclusion that the trial Judge was in error in refusing to issue a Rule nisi, and so, they allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent and directed that a Rule nisi in terms of prayer (1) of the petition should be issued. It is against this order that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave; and the only question which is sought to be raised for our decision is whether the Special Bench which heard the appeal was justified in reversing the decision of the trial Judge by which he refused to issue a Rule nisi on the respondent s petition.
3. The respondent s case as set out in the petition shows that the main basis of his grievance is that whereas he was born on December 27, 1904, the impugned order passed by the appellant proceeds on the basis that he was born on December 27, 1901. There is no doubt that under Art. 217(1) of the Constitution, the respondent would not be entitled to hold office as a Judge on attaining the age of 60 years; but he contends that he would attain the age of 60 years on December 27, 1964. It appeals that the respondent who was enrolled as a Barrister of the Calcutta High Court on May 5, 1931, was appointed an Additional Judge of the said High Court on February 11, 1949 and became a permanent Judge in January, 1950. At the time of his appointment the respondent had given the date of his birth as December 27, 1904. In April, 1959, the Ministry of Home Affairs in the Government of India raised the question about the correctness of the respondent s age as stated by him at the time of his appointment and as entered in the High Court s records. It would appear that the attention of the Home Minister, Government of India, was drawn to an extract from the Bihar and Orissa Gazette of June 26, 1918 which contained the results of the Matriculation Examination held by the Patna University in April, 1918. The relevant information contained in the said extract showed the age of the respondent at the date of the examination as 16 years and 3 months. This would tend to show that the respondent was born on December 27, 1901. It also appears that the Home Minister came to know that when the respondent sat at the open competitive examination for the I. C. S. in July/August, 1923, the date of the respondent s birth was given and shown as De
