Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 7248
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
K. CHERIYA KOYA – Appellant
Versus
U.T.ADMINISTRATION OF LAKSHADWEEP – Respondent
RP 97 2023
P.SANJAY A.PARVATHI MENON BIJU MEENATTOOR PAUL VARGHESE (PALLATH) KIRAN NARAYANAN PRASOON SUNNY RAHUL RAJ P.AMRUTHA M. NAIR P.A.MOHAMMED ASLAM
The High Court holds exclusive disciplinary authority over subordinate judicial officers, as outlined in Article 235 of the Constitution of India, negating any conflicting administrative control.
Headnote:
Judiciary - Review Petitions - Cr.P.C. Sections 195, 340 - The court addressed the scope of disciplinary controls under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, clarifying that it is vested in the High Court, not the Administrator of Lakshadweep, impacting authority in judicial discipline significantly.
Fact of the Case:
Two review petitions were filed to challenge the judgment from December 23, 2022, that required the suspension of a judicial officer and an inquiry into alleged misconduct, asserting that the previous order was erroneous regarding jurisdiction and applicable disciplinary powers.
Issues: Whether the original judgment directing disciplinary actions against the review petitioner was valid, and the extent of authority granted to the Administrator over judicial officers in the Union territory.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that judicial officers fall under the control of High Courts as per Article 235, thus invalidating the directions given to the Administrator, and clarified the role of Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. concerning judicial misconduct inquiries.
Final Decision: The review petitions are allowed in part, modifying the directions to assign disciplinary proceedings to the High Court of Kerala.
O R D E R
These two review petitions are filed to review the judgment dated 23.12.2022 in O.P.(Crl.) Nos. 608/2022 & 609/2022. The review petitioner is the 3rd respondent in the above original petitions. The above original petitions were disposed of with the following directions :
1) The Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep is directed to place the additional 3rd respondent under suspension forthwith and conduct a detailed enquiry about his actions mentioned in this order forthwith and take appropriate steps in accordance with law, untrammelled by any observation in this judgement.
2) The petitioners in these cases are allowed to raise all their contentions raised in these original petitions before the appellate court by filing appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed in CC No. 24/2016 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Amini, Lakshadweep. If no appeal is filed so far, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners for a further period of one month from today.
3) Issue notice under Sec.340 Cr.P.C. to the additional 3rd respondent, Sri.K.Cheriyakoya, Former Sub Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amini, LAKSHADWEEP, now working as the secretary, District Legal Service Authority, LAKSHADWEEP, Sri.P.P.Muthukoya, Bench Clerk, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Amini and Smt. A.C.Puthunni, LD Clerk (Bench Assistant), Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Amini for conducting a preliminary enquiry because this Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that such an enquiry should be made into the offences referred in Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 195 Cr.P.C. The Registry will enclose a copy of this order also along with the notice issued under Sec.340 Cr.P.C. to the persons mentioned above.
4) The Registry will give a separate number to the Sec.340 Cr.P.C. proceedings in accordance with law and post the case on 23.1.2023 for the appearance of the additional 3rd respondent and other persons mentioned above. Advocate Dheerendrakrishnan K.K is appointed as Amicus curiae to assist the court during the preliminary enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Registry will show the name of the Amicus curiae in the cause list.
5) Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgement to the Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep forthwith.
2. The review petitions are filed stating that there are apparent errors on the face of the record; therefore, the judgment is to be reviewed.
3. Heard Sr.Counsel, Sri.S.Sreekumar instructed by Adv.P.
Sanjay. I also heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for Lakshadweep Administration, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the High Court of Kerala and also the petitioners in the original petitions. This Court also heard Advocate Dheerendrakrishnan, the Amicus curiae appointed by this Court as per the judgment impugned in the review petitions. An argument note is also filed by the review petitioner.
4. The main contention raised by the review petitioner in these review petitions is that, there are errors apparent on the face of the record and hence the judgment is to be reviewed. It is also stated that, in view of Article 235 of the Constitution of India , the Administrator of Lakshadweep has no disciplinary power over a judicial officer and only this Court has control over subordinate courts. The review petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court inState of Haryana v. Inder Prakash Anand [ AIR 1976 SC 1841 ] and also theRajendra Singh Verma (Dead) through LRs v. Lt. Governor of NCT Delhi [ 2011 (10) SCC 1 ]. The review petitioner also submitted that, he is not liable to be proceeded in the light of Sec.3(1) of the Judges (Protection) Act , 1985 and hence, the notice issued by this Court under Sec.340 Cr.P.C. to the review petitioner for conducting a preliminary enquiry is unsustainable. The review petitioner also relied on the judgments of the Apex Court inA.R.Antulay v. R.S.Nayak and another [ AIR 1988 SC 1531 ], Anowar
