The apprehension of loss of judicial independence is not justiciable unless it is based on a specific lis or case, and a writ petition is not an appropriate remedy to address the alleged loss of judicial independence.

JUDGMENT - S.C. PRATAP, J.:---This Constitutional action stands in a class by itself. Sui generis, if one may say so. The petitioner, one R.J. Mehta, a trade union leader, has moved this Court by this unusual action under Article 226 of the Constitution. Respondent No. 1, Mr. Justice V.S. Deshpande, is the learned Chief Justice of this High Court and the others two respondents, Mr. Justice B.A. Masodkar and Mr. Justice R.L. Aggarwal, are the learned sitting Judges of this High Court. Arguments advanced by the learned Counsel Miss Indira Jaising in support of this petition were heard in extenso. A speaking order was requested. There being precedents of different courts on speaking orders at the admission stage, I proceed to give one here.

2. Initially to summarise the averments :

In October 1980 a trust viz., Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratisthan Trust was set up by Mr. A.R. Antulay, till recently the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. Mr. A.R. Antulay is the Principal trustee thereof and Mr. Justice S.A. Masodkar and Mr. Justice R.L. Aggarwal, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively, are two of the other trustees. For this trust, huge sums were collected from various persons. Contributions were obtained by Mr. A.R. Antulay and/or the other trustees from persons who had business with the Government such as grant of cement permits, no objection certificates, liquor permits etc. In receiving these, favours may have been or would be shown to the donors most of whom were wealthy persons who not only have business with the Government but are also often litigants in this Court these being the obvious reasons for their contributions. Though this trust has been ".....a symbol of political corruption", respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did nothing to dissociate themselves there from. ".....their duties as judges are likely to conflict with their interest in the said trust as also in the persons who are donors to the trust as also in the Government". They have, therefore, ceased to possess the necessary qualifications for being judges and are hence disqualified in that behalf or in any event from entertaining and trying matters in which Mr. A.R. Antulay, the State Government, the ruling party viz., Congress (I) and the donors to the said trust are parties impleaded.

3. Reference is then made to :

(a) ".....an openly political and partisan conference' viz., The All India Conference of the Intelligentsia held in August, 1981 under respondent No. 2's Chairmanship of its Reception Committee;

(b) certain cases involving the trust and the trustees pending under the Constitutional as also the Criminal processes of this Court;

(c) resolutions of the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Maharashtra expressing disapproval to the continued participation by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as trustees;

(d) press interview by respondent No. 2 identifying himself with the objective of the said trust and declining to resign there from."

4. Submitting that he is associated with several petitions pending in this Court against the State of Maharashtra and is, therefore, vitally concerned and affected by administration of justice in this Court, the petitioner, to quote him verbatim, avers :

".....for the first time issues of great Constitutional significance which involve some issues of judicial functioning in an open society, issues which ultimately have a bearing on the basic structure of the Constitution, have been raised by this petition. The questions are : whether the highest judicial functionary of the State can still discharge judicial functions when he associates with a trust; the funds of which are collected by means considered questionable by the general public, when there is great public resentment about the mode and manner in which the said funds are collected, the misrepresentation made about the true character of the trust in an official publication of the State and moneys are collected on such misrepresentation. The petitioner says that there is su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document