SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(SC) 325

M. N. VENKATACHALIAH, S. R. PANDIAN
U. P. Judicial Officers Association – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent


(1) WE have heard Shri R.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Yogeshwar Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh. This writ petition raises certain serious and important issues as to the meaning of judicial independence in relation to the judicial services and the means by which it should be ensured and protected. Incidental to the requirement of maintaining such independence of the judiciary, it is of importance that members of the judicial services should not work under apprehensions of retaliatory action by the Police and the Executive whatever form such action might assume.

(2) WE make an interim order that no crime or criminal case shall be registered against a judicial officer in respect of anything allegedly done or purported to be done in the discharge of his duty or in his capacity as holder of such judicial office without the prior permission of the chief justice of the High court concerned. In making this interim order, we take into account the observations of this court in K. yeeraswami v. Union of India where, in the context of Judges of the superior courts, it was observed :

"59. There is, however, appreh




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top