PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.S.Liberhan and G.C.Garg JJ.
Dalip Singh Gill
Versus
Union Of India
Civil Writ Petition No. 9759 of 1992,
Decided On : AUGUST 4, 1992
JUDICIARY - INDEPENDENCE - TRANSFER OF JUDGES - PUBLIC INTEREST - FAITH IN JUDICIARY - CONDUCT OF JUDGES - JUDICIAL REVIEW - IMPEACHMENT - MANDAMUS - JURISDICTION - WRIT PETITION - DISMISSAL.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a former clerical employee of a Subordinate Court whose son was dismissed from the post of a Judicial Officer, filed a writ petition seeking various reliefs, including a direction to not assign work to Judges whose kith and kin are practicing in the High Court or are working in the Advocate General's office, a direction to Senior Advocates elevated to the Bench to either refund the fees charged with interest or direct senior advocates of the petitioner's choice to argue his case free of any charges, and a direction for transfer of Judges.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Constitution provides an elaborate and detailed scheme for the functioning of the judiciary, including the appointment, transfer, and removal of Judges. 2. The power to transfer Judges from one High Court to another is vested with the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. 3. Transfer of Judges is fraught with dangers hampering the independence of the judiciary and making the Judges vulnerable to the designs of various agencies. 4. The faith of the people in the independence of the judiciary is of paramount consideration in public interest. 5. The judiciary should be trusted, and Judges should be presumed to be honest and capable. 6. Impeachment is the appropriate remedy for major lapses by Judges, while transfer is the appropriate remedy for minor lapses. 7. The Court cannot interfere in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction on the basis of wild and reckless allegations.
Issues: 1. Whether the Court can direct the transfer of Judges from one High Court to another. 2. Whether the Court can issue a direction to Judges not to assign work to Judges whose kith and kin are practicing in the High Court or are working in the Advocate General's office. 3. Whether the Court can direct Senior Advocates elevated to the Bench to either refund the fees charged with interest or direct senior advocates of the petitioner's choice to argue his case free of any charges.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power to transfer Judges from one High Court to another is vested with the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. 2. Transfer of Judges is fraught with dangers hampering the independence of the judiciary and making the Judges vulnerable to the designs of various agencies. 3. The faith of the people in the independence of the judiciary is of paramount consideration in public interest. 4. The judiciary should be trusted, and Judges should be presumed to be honest and capable. 5. Impeachment is the appropriate remedy for major lapses by Judges, while transfer is the appropriate remedy for minor lapses. 6. The Court cannot interfere in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction on the basis of wild and reckless allegations.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
M.S. LIBERHAN, J.
1. The petitioner, through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India made three fold prayer :-
(i) Not to auot work to respondent Judges, whose kith and kins are practising in the High Court or are working in Advocate Generals office; (ii) Direct the Senior Advocates elevated to the Bench, either to refund the fees charged with interest or direct the senior advocates of the petitioners choice to argue his case free of any charges, and (iii) Direction for transfer of Judges be made.
2. Succinctly concluding from the warp and weft of the petition for disposing the petition, the following facts can be woven from the point of view of the petitioner. The petitioner averred that he engaged one of the respondents, to file a writ petition challenging the removel of his son from the post of a Judicial Officer i.e. Subordinate Judge. The respondent later elevated to bench and did not file the writ petition. and advised to wait, as he told the petitioner that since in view of talk he had with a named Judge who was against the petitioners son, the petitioner could not get relief till the named Judge is on the Bench. It is averred that on his elevation, he got his brother and daughter engaged as petitioners counsel on a payment of Rs. 7000.00 as the fee. in spite of the fact that he had already charged Rs. 18,000.00 as his fee and no writ petition was filed by him. Vaguely filing of writ by the later counsel was admitted. Inactivity on the part of petitioners counsel to get an appropriate relief to petitioners son, in spite of his getting reliefs to some other litigants was attributed. Lastly a bald assertion was made in the petition that the wards or relations of Judges practising in the High Court are having roaring practice which is disproportionate to their merits.
3. The petitioner in a state of frenzy with a zeal to support his prayers made reference to various news items published from time to time. Speech of President of the Bar Association for transfer of all Judges, statement reported to have been made by the ex Chief Justice, Venkataramiah. with respect to Judges succumbing to local pressures, their wards building practice disproportionate to their merits, their wining and dining outside and their attending lavish parties was referred to in the petition. Reference with respect to 4 to 5 Judges was made out of 90 with respect to whom retired Chief Justice had made the alleged statement.
4. The petitioner attempted sorcery out of the reports published in various newspapers. Further expurgated version as put-forth by the petitioner is to the effect that Judges relations and wards are having practice disproportionate to their merits. Paranormal sweeping allegations with respect to cholical approach, succumbing to local pressures with respect to all Judges, in spite of the fact that howsoever highly reputed one might have been about his independence, were made Petitioner after quoting retired Chief Justices statement, regarding some policy for transfer of Judges sought its implementation. It was not specified even remotely as to that the statement of the Chief Justice meant i.e. whether the policy of transfer of Judges was with respect to ones who wine and dine or succumb to local pressure or was it for all irrespective of other numerous relevant factors. Further reference was made to the comments for setting up machinery for investigating the conduct of any member of judiciary, as well as providing code of conduct for Judges.
5. It may be noticed, at this stage that the petitioner during the course of arguments refused to even own the responsibility of making vague, reckless and irresponsible sweeping allegations. It was simply pleaded that the references made to the remarks made in various publications be expunged.
6. Country is of and for the people inhabiting in it. People of India by written constitution elected the democratic way of life for their governance and justice to all is one
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.