Judgment

VERMA, J. :- These matters are a sequel to the decision by a nine-Judge Bench in SC Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, (1993)4 SCC 441 (AIR (994 SC 268) (hereinafter called the "Judges Case-II"), and relate to the question of transfer of Judges of the High Courts under Art. 222 of the Constitution of India.

2. Civil Appeal No. 140 of 1994 by Special leave is against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant, K. Ashok Reddy. In substance, the relief claimed in the writ petition was a declaration that Judges of the High Court are not liable to be transferred from one to another High Court. It was contended that the transfers were likely to be influenced by extraneous considerations leading to arbitrariness resulting in erosion of the independence of judiciary. Another. contention was that the decision by the nine-Judge Bench in the Judges Case-II (AIR 1944 SC 268) excludes the power of judicial review and is, therefore, in conflict with the decision of a larger Bench in His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru v. State of Kerala, 1973 (Supp) SCR I . The Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected these contentions taking the view. that such misapprehensions result from a misreading of the decision of the nine-Judge Bench in the Judges Case-II. Civil Appeal No. 140 of 1994 has been filed by special leave against that judgment.

3. When the aforesaid civil appeal came up for hearing, it was reported that a writ petition raising similar questions had been filed in the Allahabad High Court and, therefore, it was considered appropriate to withdraw that writ petition from the Allahabad High Court and to hear and decide the same along with the said Civil appeal. Accordingly, that writ petition withdrawn from the Allahabad High Court is Transferred Case No. 1 of 1994 and is also decided along with the civil appeal. The reliefs claimed in Transferred Case No. 1 of 1994 relate essentially to Judges of the Allahabad High Court and their transfer.

4. Notice was issued to the Central Government as well as the Attorney General of India in both these matters.

5. We have heard the appellant, K. Ashok Reddy, a practising Advocate from Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner, Harikesh Singh in Transferred Case No. 1 of 1994 is a practising Advocate from Allahabad. In spite of sufficient prior notice of the date of hearing, Harikesh Singh chose to remain absent and took no steps for appearance on his behalf. We have, therefore, examined his case with the assistance. of the learned counsel appearing in these matters. We also heard the learned Attorney General and Shri A. K. Ganguli on behalf of the Central Government and Ms. Indira Jaising who appeared on behalf of Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability.

6. The appellant, K. Ashok Reddy submitted that Art. 222 of the Constitution of India is in substance a dead letter since the power thereunder is incapable of exercise in the absence of guidelines provided in the Constitution itself. He also submitted that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution as held in Kesavananda Bharati (AIR 1973 SC 1461) by a larger Bench and, therefore, the holding by a nine-Judge Bench in the Judges Case-II (AIR 1994 SC 268) excluding judicial review in the matter of transfers is not good law. Shri Reddy expressed his concern at the likely arbitrariness in the transfer of High Court Judges emphasising the fact that his concern was about the proper implementation of that policy and not of its effect on any individual High Court Judge. According to him, the Judges Case-II should be clarified to prevent any arbitrariness.

7. The learned Attorney General submitted that the misapprehensions of Shri Reddy are unfounded since the Judges Case-II has dealt with these aspects and also indicated the guidelines to exclude any arbitrariness in the transfer of Judges. The learned Attorney General also submitted that the Judges Case-II does not conflict with t