M. N. VENKATACHALIAH, RANGANATH MISRA, M. M. PUNCHHI
Subhash Sharma: Supreme Court Advocate On Record Association: Firdauz Taleyarkhan – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India: Union Of India (Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Law And Justice) : Union Of India – Respondent
ORDER:—These are applications under Article 32 of the Constitution. The first petition is by an advocate practising in this Court; the second by the SC Advocates on Record Association and the last by the Honorary Secretary of the Bombay Bar Association. These applications are in the nature of public interest litigation. The relief asked for is one for mandamus to the Union of India to fill up the vacancies of Judges in the SC and the several High Courts of the country and ancillary orders or directions in regard to the same. The petition from Bombay is confined to the relief of filling up of vacancies in the Bombay High Court. Since common pleas were advanced and the relief sought was of similar nature, these applications have been clubbed together heard from time to time.
2. In response to the rule, the Union of India took the stand through the Attorney General that the petitions were not maintainable and the filling up of the vacancies in the superior courts was not a justiciable matter. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, (1982) 2 SCR 365. The objection raised by the learned Attorney General was overruled by the Court by
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.