Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 4853
High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN & M.M. SUNDRESH
K. Bharathi
Versus
Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs & Others
W.P.SR.No.132192 of 2012
Decided on: 10-12-2012
For the Petitioner: K. Bharathi (Party-in-Person).
The judgment emphasizes the importance of evidence in challenging a Judge's conduct, the distinction between eligibility and suitability for appointment, and the limitations of a Writ of Quo Warranto in cases of misconduct after appointment.
Headnote:
Writ of Quo Warranto - Judicial Independence - Article 217 of the Constitution of India - Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Advocate, sought a Writ of Quo Warranto questioning the authority of a Judge to continue in office based on an advertisement implying political affiliation. The petitioner contended that the Judge's impartiality was compromised due to the advertisement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's contentions were based on presumptions and surmises, lacking proof that the advertisement was issued by the Judge or with his approval. The court emphasized the distinction between eligibility and suitability for appointment, and the limitations of a Writ of Quo Warranto in cases of misconduct after appointment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the Judge's alleged political affiliation and its impact on judicial independence, as well as the maintainability of the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of evidence in challenging a Judge's conduct and highlighted the distinction between eligibility and suitability for appointment. It also underscored the limitations of a Writ of Quo Warranto in cases of misconduct after appointment.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as it was found to be not maintainable.
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
The petitioner, who is an Advocate practising in this Court and who is also the State Convener of Democratic Advocates' Association, has come up with the above writ petition, seeking the issue of a Writ of Quo Warranto, questioning the authority of the third respondent to continue in Office.
2. Heard Mr. K. Bharathi, the petitioner-in-person.
3. The third respondent belonged to the Subordinate Judiciary of the State of Tamil Nadu. His name was recommended for elevation to the Bench of this Court by the Collegium of Judges of this Court. After the approval of the said recommendation, by the Collegium of the Supreme Court, the third respondent was appointed as an Additional Judge of this Court by a Warrant issued by the President of India in terms of the Article 217 of the Constitution of India. He assumed Office on 26.3.2012.
4. The petitioner has not raised any objection to the appointment of the third respondent as such. It is not the case of the petitioner that the third respondent had suffered any disqualification at the time when his name was recommended for appointment or at the time when the Warrant of Appointment was actually issued. There is no dispute about the fact that the third respondent is also qualified for appointment to the post of Additional Judge of this Court in terms of Clause (2) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India.
5. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the process of appointment of the third respondent was actually faulty. The petitioner does not contend that there was no proper recommendation by the Collegium nor does he contend that certain relevant considerations that should have weighed with the Collegium, were not taken into account before recommending his name for appointment.
6. Actually, the complaint of the petitioner is that an advertisement appeared in the Tamil Newspaper viz., 'Daily Thanthi' in its Madurai Edition dated 21.11.2012. The advertisement carried a group photograph purportedly taken on the occasion of the wedding reception of the third respondent's son. Seen in the said photograph were, the third respondent, and his wife, apart from the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, the newly married couple and the parents of the bride. The advertisement contained at the bottom, a message of thanks to the Chief Minister for having blessed the couple. At the bottom of the advertisement, the names of the third respondent, his wife and the names of the parents of the bride are also printed. The message of thanks carries certain adulations to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.
7. On the basis of the said advertisement, it is contended by Mr. K. Bharathi, the petitioner, appearing in person, that the third respondent would not henceforth be able to discharge his functions as a Judge of this Court in an unbiased manner. According to the petitioner, the Office of Judgeship of the High Court carries with it, onerous duties and responsibilities and that they could be effectively discharged only by persons of tried integrity, impeccable character and sterling qualities. Therefore, the petitioner contends that once a person appointed to the post, identifies himself as a person belonging to a political party by issuing such advertisements, it would tarnish the image of the judiciary and make people lose faith that they repose in the judiciary.
8. The above contention of the petitioner is based only upon presumptions and surmises. The entire writ petition proceeds on the presumption that the advertisement in question had actually been issued by the third respondent. But, we have no proof before us to show that the advertisement was actually issued either by the third respondent or at his behest. When confronted on this, Mr. K. Bharathi, the petitioner contended that it is for the third respondent to come up with a denial. But, we do not think so. At the outset, it is the bounden duty of the petitioner to produce some materials of probative value to show
