SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.S. CHAUHAN & J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.
Registrar General, High Court of Madras – Appellant
Versus
R. Gandhi & Others – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 892-893/2014 with Transferred Case (Civil) No. 31 of 2014 (Arising Out of WP (C) No. 375/2014 Pending in Madras High Court) with Transferred Case (Civil) No. 29 & 30 of 2014 (Arising out of TP(C) Nos. 383 & 384 /2014 (D.3826/2014)
Decided On : 05-03-2014
Administration of Justice – Judicial propriety – A Judge should be disinterested – Sitting Judge of Madras High Court appearing in the matter – Conduct uncalled for and unwarranted – Deprecated and disapproved. (Para 13 to 15)
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ of quo warranto – Judicial Review – Elevation to Judges of High Court – Eligibility and suitability – Judicial review is permissible only on assessment of eligibility and not on suitability – Writ petition against recommendation premature – Warrant can be quashed if the person is not eligible – Writ petitions were not maintainable. (Para 20, 21)
(1993) 4 SCC 441; (1998) 7 SCC 739; (2009) 8 SCC 273; (1995) 5 SCC 457; AIR 1992 SC 1213; AIR 2001 SC 3435 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
This case again raises the issue of elevation to High Court or Supreme Court Judges.
The collegium of the Madras High Court recommended a list of 12 persons comprising of ten advocates and two District Judges for consideration by the collegium of Supreme Court for appointment as Judges of the Madras High Court. The said list was forwarded to the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, the Supreme Court of India as well as to the Government of Tamil Nadu on 14.12.2013 as required under the law.
The writ petitioner, Mr. R. Gandhi, Senior Advocate, filed Writ Petition before the Madras High Court seeking a direction to the Union of India and the Supreme Court collegium to return the said list as the recommendees therein were not suitable as per the assessment of the writ petitioner and other members of the Bar for elevation. More so, the collegium of the High Court did not recommend the name of the eligible advocates belonging to different castes. The Hon’ble Chief Justice and first senior most Judge did not hail originally from Tamil Nadu so they were unable to understand and appreciate the complex social structure of the State of Tamil Nadu.
The Division Bench of the Madras High Court passed the orders dated 8.1.2014 and 9.1.2014. According to the first order, an interim direction was issued directing the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India to maintain the status quo, while the order dated 9.1.2014 restrained the Government of Tamil Nadu from making any recommendation in this regard and further to maintain the status quo till 21.1.2014.
Finding of the Court:
While eligibility is amenable to judicial review, suitability is not.
Judgment :-
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
1. The issue of selection and elevation to the office of a High Court Judge has engaged the attention of this Court. The issue of such selection reflecting transparency, objectivity and constitutional sustainability has engaged the attention of this Court since this cause came to be espoused and dealt with by a nine-Judge Bench of this Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441, more particularly known as Second Judges case. The said decision also became a subject matter of a Presidential Reference being Special Reference No.1 of 1998 that was answered again by a nine-Judge Bench reported in (1998) 7 SCC 739.
2. One of the issues involved in both these decisions has been issue of judicial review of appointments as a High Court Judge or a Supreme Court Judge. The Second Judges case (supra) answered it in paragraphs 480 to 482 of the aforesaid decision and the Special Reference also answered the same emphasising the limited scope of judicial review and restrained the justiciability of such recommendations and appointment of Judges.
3. More recently, the issue with regard to the elevation of a High Court Judge on a recommendation of the collegium came to be scrutinised in a challenge raised before the Allahabad High Court that came to be finally decided by this Court in Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India (2009) 8 SCC 273. It was again held therein following the aforesaid decisions that suitability of a recommendee and the consultation are not subject to judicial review but the issue of lack of eligibility or an effective consultation can be scrutinised for which a writ of quo warranto would lie.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, the present petitions came to be entertained questioning the orders of the Madras High Court dated 8.1.2014 and 9.1.2014 by which and whereunder the Madras High Court entertained writ petitions and passed interim orders to maintain status quo regarding the process of recommendation of 12 aspirants to the aforesaid office after the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court had forwarded the said recommendations to the Supreme Court collegium for consideration. The restraint order also directed the various constitutional authorities including the State Government and the Union Government to act accordingly as the prayer made in the petitions was to return back the recommendations on the allegation that the recommendations were not in conformity with an effective consultative process and that they were otherwise for reasons disclosed unacceptable.
5. This Court vide order dated 13.1.2014 entertained the Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 892-893 of 2014 filed by the Madras High Court against the orders passed by the Madras High Court on 8.1.2014 and 9.1.2014 in Writ Petition No. 375 of 2014, restraining the High Court to proceed with the hearing of the said writ petition and issued suo motu show cause as to why the said writ petition be not transferred for hearing to this court. It appears that in the meanwhile, Writ Petition No. 1082/2014 titled S. Doraisamy v. The Registrar General, Supreme Court of India & Ors. and Writ Petition No. 1119/2014 titled P. Rathinam v. Union of India & Ors., dealing with the same subject matter had also been filed before the Madras High Court. The Madras High Court preferred transfer petitions to transfer the said two writ petitions to this court for hearing alongwith transferred case arising out of WP (C) No. 375/2014. Permission to file TP (C) arising out of D.No.3826/2014 is granted. We allow the transfer petitions and all the three aforesaid writ petitions stand transferred to this Court. Thus, in view thereof, the Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 892-893/2014 have become insignificant and stand disposed of accordingly.
6. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are that:
A. The collegium of the Madras High Court consisting of the Hon’ble Chief Justice and two senior most Judges vide Resolutio
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.