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

2025 Supreme(SC) 326

MANMOHAN, DIPANKAR DATTA
Amaragouda L Patil – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishanth Patil, Adv. Mr. Mv Mukunda, Adv. Mr. Ayush P Shah, Adv. Mr. Revanta Solanki, Adv. Mr. Hruday Bajentri, Adv. Mr. Arijit Dey, Adv. Mr. Mehul Kumar Garg, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Sr. Adv. Mr. Parmod Kumar Vishnoi, Adv. Ms. Vanya Gupta, AOR Mr. Avnish Dave, Adv. Mr. Kumar Prashant, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sanjeevani Shandilya, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Dviwedi, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Balaji, Adv. Mr. Shivendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR

Judgement Key Points

The Supreme Court exemplified judicial activism by quashing the appointment of the National Commission for Homeopathy's Chairperson for failing statutory eligibility under Section 4 of the NCH Act, mandating 20 years' Homeopathy experience, including 10 as a 'leader' (Head of Department/Organisation). (!) (!) (!) (!) Despite a high-level Search Committee's recommendation, the Court scrutinized confidential files and documents, finding no evidence of requisite experience and procedural lapses, such as undocumented satisfaction of qualifications. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) Affirming judicial review's role in public employment under Articles 14 and 16, it intervened on eligibility violations and 'malice in law'—conscious disregard of mandatory criteria—rejecting deference to experts where statutory breaches occur. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) This expanded judicial oversight ensures fairness, prevents fraud on the public, and mandates fresh selection, underscoring courts' duty to enforce constitutional mandates strictly. (!) (!) (!) (!) (148 words)


JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. A manifestly flawed process of selection, which was rightly interdicted by the writ court, has since been reversed by the writ appellate court premised on a fundamentally incorrect understanding of the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 19611[Business Rules] framed under Article 77 of the Constitution of India and an utterly mistaken notion of the scope of interference in matters relating to selection and appointment. It has, thus, not surprised us at all that Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General, representing the first respondent-Union of India2[UoI] and the second respondent-Search Committee, and Mr. Devashish Bharuka, learned senior counsel appearing for the third respondent, have made little effort to sustain the selection of the third respondent with reference to and/or relying on the said appellate judgment. Instead, the effort has been more towards sustaining the selection and appointment of the third respondent by highlighting the limited scope of judicial review in matters where the experts in the relevant field are the selectors and the process of selection is conducted by them. Much of this later, w

          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