Anantanarayanan, O.C.J.-

These are two related writ petitions for the issue of writs of quo warranto, which originally sought for writs of mandamus, instituted by Sri D. Gobalousamy, an Advocat-Conceil practising in the Pondicherry Courts for over 19 years, and currently President of the Bar Association. He challenges the orders of appointment of Sri S. Maharajan as the President of the Tribunal Superieur d’Appel at Pondicherry; and of Sri R. Krishnamurthi as the Puisne Judge of the same Court. Very broadly stated, the grounds of attack are that a Proces-Verbal, which was concluded between the French and the Indian delegations on 15th March, 1963, and which has to be regarded as integral with the Treaty of Cession, has guaranteed certain rights to the citizens of Pondicherry in respect of the judicial organisation and the qualifications of the judiciary, which have been infringed by the abrupt change made evident by these appointments.

It is common ground between the writ petitioner and the Government of Pondicherry as well as the Union of India (respondents 1 and 2) that these appointments were made in the wake of two notifications, the first promulgated by the Central Government by virtue of the powers conferred on it under section 4 (2) of the Pondicherry (Administration) Act, 1962, dated 12th October, 1963 and the second termed the Pondicherry Judicial Officers (Qualifications) Rules, 1963, promulgated by the President of India on 5th October, 1963, and that the appointments were based upon the modifications ensuing from those orders. The contention is that one of these notifications, that is the one issued by the President of India, purporting to be in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, cannot be sustained on that basis, and is unconstitutional. In brief, therefore, it is claimed that the appointments of those two officers, who do not possess the degree in law of a French University known as Licencie en droit, and who do not have the requisite knowledge of the French language, cannot be validly supported because of the infringement of a justiciable guarantee embodied in the Proces-Verbal, and also because the Presidential promulgation bringing into existence new rules for the qualifications of the judiciary at Pondicherry, earlier referred to, is unconstitutional. Indisputably, these are grounds of great interest and importance, and deserve careful consideration at the hands of the Court.

At the outset, the change in the nature of the writ sought, and the interest of the petitioner in the proceedings may be briefly referred to Originally, the writs were of the character of proceedings in mandamus because of the proposals for appointment, had not been entirely implemented by then; later, following the appointments, they were altered into writs of quo warranto. Sri Arunachalam contends for the writ petitioner, that he is a person interested, though not a rival claimant to these offices, as he will be adversely affected by the changes in the judicial organisation, resulting from the introduction of Judges not qualified in French law, and not having the requisite knowledge of the French language. A person possessing an interest of this kind can complain: vide Srikishan v. The State1. With regard to the nature of the injury sustained, reference is also made to Dr. P. S. Venkataswamy v. University of Mysore2. I shall proceed on the assumption that the writ petitioner has a right to complain, and to seek these reliefs at our hands, if he can show that the orders of appointment infringed a guarantee, which is part of the Treaty of Cession, and which is so implemented by the Pondicherry (Administration) Act (XLIX of 1962), that the guarantee is justiciable in the municipal Courts of India; again, that he has a right to relief, if he can show that the order of the President, introducing changes in qualifications for judicial officers at Pondicherry, under the proviso to Article 309, is unco

Click Here to Read the rest of this document