1998 Supreme(SC) 1094

Supreme Court Of India
Decided On : (October 28, 1998)
PRESIDENT OF INDIA
Versus
SPECIAL REFERENCE No. 1 OF 1998,re:

The opinion of the Chief Justice of India in the matter of appointments to the Supreme Court and the High Courts has primacy and must be formed in consultation with a plurality of Judges.

Headnote:

CONSULTATION - CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA - APPOINTMENT AND TRANSFER OF JUDGES - OPINION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA - JUDICIALLY REVIEWABLE - TRANSFER OF JUDGES - JUDICIAL REVIEW - APPOINTMENT TO SUPREME COURT - SENIORITY - NON-APPOINTMENT OF A JUDGE - CONSULTATION WITH OTHER JUDGES - REQUIREMENT OF CONSULTATION - RECOMMENDATION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA - BINDING UPON THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

Fact of the Case:

The President of India referred to the Supreme Court for its opinion questions relating to the appointment and transfer of Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts and the relevance of seniority in making appointments to the Supreme Court.

Finding of the Court:

1. The expression "consultation with the Chief Justice of India" in Articles 217 (1) and 222 (1) of the Constitution of India requires consultation with a plurality of Judges in the formation of the opinion of the Chief Justice of India. The sole, individual opinion of the Chief Justice of India does not constitute "consultation" within the meaning of the said Articles. 2. The transfer of puisne Judges is judicially reviewable only to this extent: that the recommendation that has been made by the Chief Justice of India in this behalf has not been made in consultation with the four senior-most puisne Judges of the Supreme Court and/or that the views of the Chief Justice of the High Court from which the transfer is to be effected and of the Chief Justice of the High Court to which the transfer is to be effected have not been obtained. 3. The Chief Justice of India must make a recommendation to appoint a Judge of the Supreme Court and to transfer a Chief Justice or puisne Judge of a High Court in consultation with the four senior-most puisne Judges of the Supreme Court. Insofar as an appointment to the High Court is concerned, the recommendation must be made in consultation with the two senior-most puisne Judges of the Supreme Court. 4. The Chief Justice of India is not entitled to act solely in his individual capacity, without consultation with other Judges of the Supreme Court, in respect of materials and information conveyed by the Government of India for non-appointment of a Judge recommended for appointment. 5. The requirement of consultation by the Chief Justice of India with his colleagues who are likely to be conversant with the affairs of the concerned High Court does not refer only to those Judges who have that High Court as a parent High Court. It does not exclude Judges who have occupied the office of a Judge or Chief Justice of that High Court on transfer. 6. "strong cogent reasons" do not have to be recorded, as justification for a departure from the order of seniority, in respect of each senior Judge who has been passed over. What has to be recorded is the positive reason for the recommendation. 7. The view of the other Judges consulted should be in writing and should be conveyed to the Government of India by the Chief Justice of India along with his views to the extent set out in the body of this opinion. 8. The Chief Justice of India is obliged to comply with the norms and the requirement of the consultation process, as aforestated, in making his recommendations to the Government of India. 9. Recommendations made by the Chief Justice of India without complying with the norms and requirements of the consultation process, as aforestated, are not binding upon the Government of India.

Issues: 1. Whether the expression "consultation with the Chief Justice of India" in Articles 217 (1) and 222 (1) requires consultation with a plurality of Judges in the formation of the opinion of the Chief Justice of India or does the sole individual opinion of the Chief Justice of India constitute consultation within the meaning of the said articles? 2. Whether the transfer of Judges is judicially reviewable in the light of the observation of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment that "such transfer is not justiciable on any ground" and its further observation that limited judicial review is available in matters of transfer, and the extent and scope of judicial review? 3. Whether Article 124 (2) as interpreted in the said judgment requires the Chief Justice of India to consult only the two senior-most Judges or whether there should be wider consultation according to past practice? 4. Whether the Chief Justice of India is entitled to act solely in his individual capacity, without consultation with other Judges of the Supreme Court in respect of all materials and information conveyed by the Government of India for non-appointment of a Judge recommended for appointment? 5. Whether the requirement of consultation by the Chief Justice of India with his colleagues, who are likely to be conversant with the affairs of the concerned High Court refers to only those Judges who have that High Court as a parent High Court and excludes Judges who had occupied the office of a Judge or Chief Justice of that Court on transfer from their parent or any other Court? 6. Whether in light of the legitimate expectations of senior Judges of the High Court in regard to their appointment to the Supreme Court referred to in the said judgment, the strong cogent reason required to justify the depature from the order of the seniority has to be recorded in respect of each such senior Judge, who is overlooked, while making recommendation of a Judge junior to him or her? 7. Whether the Government is not entitled to require that the opinions of the other consulted Judges be in writing in accordance with the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment and that the same be transmitted to the Government of India by the Chief Justice of India along with his views? 8. Whether the Chief Justice of India is not obliged to comply with the norms and the requirement of the consultation process in making his recommendation to the Government of India? 9. Whether any recommendations made by the Chief Justice of India without complying with the norms and consultation process are binding upon the Government of India?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The opinion of the Chief Justice of India in the matter of appointments to the Supreme Court and the High Courts has primacy. The opinion of the Chief Justice of India is "reflective of the opinion of the judiciary, which means that it must necessarily have the element of plurality in its formation". It is to be formed "after taking into account the view of some other Judges who are traditionally associated with this function". The opinion of the Chief Justice of India "so given has primacy in the matter of all appointments". 2. The Chief Justice of India must consult a plurality of Judges before recommending the transfer of a puisne Judge of one High Court to another High Court, also as a puisne Judge. He must take into account the views of the Chief Justice of the High Court from which the Judge is to be transferred, any Judge of the Supreme Court whose opinion may have significance in the case and atleast one other senior Chief Justice of a High Court or any other person whose views he considers relevant. 3. The Chief Justice of India must make a recommendation to appoint a Judge of the Supreme Court and to transfer a Chief Justice or puisne Judge of a High Court in consultation with the four senior-most puisne Judges of the Supreme Court. Insofar as an appointment to the High Court is concerned, the recommendation must be made in consultation with the two senior-most puisne Judges of the Supreme Court. 4. The Chief Justice of India is not entitled to act solely in his individual capacity, without consultation with other Judges of the Supreme Court, in respect of materials and information conveyed by the Government of India for non-appointment of a Judge recommended for appointment. 5. The requirement of consultation by the Chief Justice of India with his colleagues who are likely to be conversant with the affairs of the concerned High Court does not refer only to those Judges who have that High Court as a parent High Court. It does not exclude Judges who have occupied the office of a Judge or Chief Justice of that High Court on transfer. 6. "strong cogent reasons" do not have to be recorded, as justification for a departure from the order of seniority, in respect of each senior Judge who has been passed over. What has to be recorded is the positive reason for the recommendation. 7. The view of the other Judges consulted should be in writing and should be conveyed to the Government of India by the Chief Justice of India along with his views to the extent set out in the body of this opinion. 8. The Chief Justice of India is obliged to comply with the norms and the requirement of the consultation process, as aforestated, in making his recommendations to the Government of India. 9. Recommendations made by the Chief Justice of India without complying with the norms and requirements of the consultation process, as aforestated, are not binding upon the Government of India.

Final Decision: The questions posed by the Reference are now answered, but we should emphasise that the answers should be read in conjunction with the body of this opinion.