Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(All) 1856

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Jaspreet Singh, Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, JJ.
Justice (Retd.) Sudhir Kumar Saxena & Ors. - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy., Govt. Of U.P., Lucknow & Anr. - Respondent
Misc. Bench No. 18001 of 2019, Misc. Bench No. 19139, 19102 of 2017 Alonwith P.I.L. CIVIL No. -13388 of 2019
Decided On : 16-11-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Gaurav Mehrotra, Laltaprasad Misra
For the Respondent: C.S.C.

The amendment reducing the age for Tribunal members was upheld, but its application to current officeholders was deemed unconstitutional, impacting judicial independence and tenure security.

Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 - Amendment Act No. 4 of 2017 - Writ petitions challenging the amendment that reduces the age of superannuation for the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Members of the Tribunal from 70 to 65 years and from 65 to 62 years respectively - It was contended that these provisions are unconstitutional as they violate the basic structure of the Constitution, especially judicial independence and security of tenure. (Paras 1 to 112)

(B) The challenge included arguments regarding violation of Articles 14 and 16, retrospective application impacting vested rights, colorable legislation, and legislative unreasonableness - The Court ruled that merely fixing age limits does not equate to removal and does not infringe upon constitutional rights. (Paras 18, 61, 81, 128)

Facts of the case:
Four writ petitions contested the validity of amendments that curtailed the terms of the Tribunal members, expressing concerns over judicial independence and prior assurances made to incumbents about their tenure. (Paras 4, 6)

Findings of Court:
The introduction of section 3(8-c) was struck down for being arbitrary, while the changes in age stipulations were upheld. (Paras 130, 128)

Issues: Key issues included whether the legislative amendments undermined judicial independence and the implications these changes had for the existing incumbents of the Tribunal. (Paras 36, 128)

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined the provisions affecting age were constitutional, but the concurrent applicability to those already in office rendered it unjustifiable as it undermined existing rights to tenure and functionality. (Paras 128)

Result: Writ petitions allowed in part; amendments struck down regarding the applicability to current officeholders while upholding the revised age limits. (Paras 128, 127, 116)

Table of Content
1. challenge to amendment reducing age limits in tribunal (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. multiple petitions challenging similar legal questions (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. arguments asserting constitutional violations (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. arguments refuting constitutionality challenges (Para 25 , 26)
5. scope of judicial review of legislative amendments (Para 36 , 37)
6. independence of judiciary as a fundamental principle (Para 41 , 42)
7. legislative competence and limitations (Para 50 , 51)
8. conclusion regarding the validity of the amendment (Para 96 , 126 , 128)

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. These batch of writ petitions raises a challenge to the amendment brought in the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to the Principal Act) by means of Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal Amendment Act No.4 of 2017 (hereinafter referred to the Amending Act of 2017) by which Section 3 sub-section (8) of the Principal Act has been amended. Prior to the Amending Act of 2017, the Principal Act, provided that the Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Members shall not hold office after attaining the age of 70 years in the case of Chairman and 65 years in the case of Vice-Chairman or any other members. However, by means of Amending Act 2017, this age of superannuation has been reduced to 65 years in the case of Chairman and 62 years in the case of Vice-Chairman or any other members.

2. Another sub-section (8-c) has also been introduced by the Amending Act of 2017 whereby it provides that the provisions of sub section (8) as amended by Amendment Act of 2017 shall also apply to the Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Member holding office on date of the commencement of the said Act.

3. For clarity the provision of Section 3 (8) as it stood prior to the enactment of the Amending Act No.4 of 2017 and after its amendment is being reproduced here-in-after:-

Section 3 (8) - prior to Amending Act of 2017

Section 3 (8) - After the Amending Act of 2017

(8) The Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other member shall hold office as such for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office but shall be eligible for reappointment for another term of five years:

Provided that no Chairman, vice-Chairman or member shall hold office as such after he has attained, [(a) in the case of Chairman, the age of seventy years, and

(b) in the case of Vice-Chairman or a other member, the age [of sixty five years.]

[(8-a) The Provisions of sub-section (8) as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal Amendment) Act, 2007 shall apply also to the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman and other members holding office on the commencement of the said Act]

[(8-b) The Provisions of sub-section (8) as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal Amendment) Act, 2013 shall apply also to the Chairman holding office on the commencement of the said Act]

Provided that no Chairman, vice-Chairman or other member shall held office as such after he has attained, [(a) in the case of Chairman or Vice-Chairman, the age of sixty-seven years, and

(b) in the case of any other member the age of sixty-five years.]

[(8-a) The provisions of sub-section (8) as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal) (Amendment) Act, 2007 shall apply also to the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman and other members holding office on the commencement of the said Act]

[(8-b) The Provisions of sub-section (8) as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal Amendment) Act, 2013 shall apply also to the Chairman holding office on the commencement o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(All) 1856

The amendment reducing the age for Tribunal members was upheld, but its application to current officeholders was deemed unconstitutional, impacting judicial independence and tenure security.

Cases Referred (58)