Back
2005 Supreme(Mad) 1329
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.KARAPGAVINAYAGAM & HE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.V.MASILAMANI
G.Rajendran - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Others - Respondents
WRIT PETITION No.24849 OF 2005
Decided On : 11 August 2005
The main legal point established is the limited scope of judicial review in appointment matters, emphasizing the importance of consultation with constitutional functionaries and the primacy of merit in the appointment process.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Appointment of Judges - AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 268, Article 217 of the Constitution
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the Union of India to strictly follow the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 268 in the matter of appointment of Judges to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner's allegations to be baseless and lacking in material evidence. It emphasized the elaborate appointment process outlined in Article 217 of the Constitution and the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's allegations of political influence and nepotism in the appointment of Judges to the High Court, and the court's jurisdiction to intervene in the appointment process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in appointment matters, highlighting the importance of consultation with constitutional functionaries and the primacy of merit in the appointment process.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that it was not possible to entertain it and suggested the petitioner to concentrate on practice in the High Court instead of filing vexatious petitions.
(Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus.)
M.Karpagavinayagam, J.
G.Rajendran, party-in-person, claiming himself as the President of Madras High Court Practising Advocates' Association, has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the prayer, as under :
"I therefore pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, in the nature of writ, directing the Union of India, represented by Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, first respondent, and Union of India, represented by Secretary, Home Department, second respondent, to strictly follow the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case, namely, Supreme Court Advocate on record Association -vs- Union of India, reported in AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 268 and also the suggestions mentioned in this Writ Petition, in the matter of appointment of Judges to the Hon'ble High Court from out of the lists so far sent to the Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, which are pending consideration."
2. The circumstances, which led to the filing of this Writ Petition as a pro bono publico, according to the party-in-person, are as follows :
"(a) Petitioner has been given to understand that recently a list of names of advocates were recommended for elevation as Judges of this High Court. He came to know from the newspaper reports and from the Members of the Bar that most of them are having political attachment and membership in political parties. When such politically attached advocates get elevated to the post of High Court Judges, there is every possibility of showing bias or favoritism. Therefore, C.B.I. or I.B. may be requested to investigate and report separately on the political affiliation or association of any advocate, who has been recommended for elevation, before deciding the matter. If it is found that the advocate belongs to political party, it may be decided that he shall not be appointed as a Judge of the High Court. In addition, yet another new deplorable malady has taken place that some of the advocates now recommended are very close relatives, classmates, former associates or convenient friends of the Hon'ble sitting and retired Judges of the Madras High Court. Thus, it is clear that nepotism has crept in.
(b) If the higher Judiciary of the State is allowed to be occupied by the family members of the sitting and retired Judges and political personalities, there may be a phenomenon of anarchism in the modern time of judicial activism, equalism and independence. So, the advocates, who are close relatives and convenient friends of the sitting and retired Judges, are not to be appointed.
(c) He saw a news item in Tamil Daily "Thina Thanthi" on 28.01.2005, giving the news that names of 12 new persons have been sent by the Chief Justice of the High Court, recommending for their appointment. He sent a representation to Law Minister on 30.11.2004 and a letter to Law Secretary and Home Secretary on 30.07.2005, objecting to the appointment of the persons, who are politically connected and closely related to Judges. Some of them are related to Judges and some of them are connected to political activities. But, there is no response. Hence, he has filed this Writ Petition, seeking for a mandamus."
3. We have heard Mr.G.Rajendran, party-in-person. He argued at length, on the basis of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 268 (SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA). Pointing out various paragraphs, he submitted that in view of the guidelines given by the Supreme Court relating to the undesirability of the political influence and nepotism, which should be discouraged, suitable directions may be issued by this Court to respondents 1 and 2, to follow those guidelines, given by the Supreme Court. He would further point out that
