REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS Vs. R. GANDHI
LAWS(SC)-2014-3-8
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on
March 05,2014
REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Appellant
VERSUS
R. Gandhi
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
KUMAR PADMA PRASAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES ON RECORD ASSOCIATION S P GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
C RAVICHANDRAN IYER VS. JUSTICE A M BHATTACHARJEE [REFERRED TO]
B R KAPUR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH CHANDRA GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
RAMAN SAHANI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-4-33] [REFERRED TO]N. PREMKUMAR VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-8-55] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD AHIRWAR VS. STATE OF M P AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-7-124] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR BALMIK VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2020-9-27] [REFERRED TO]
RAMANDEEP SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(P&H)-2018-1-103] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK VISHNOI VS. STATE OF M. P. [LAWS(MPH)-2023-8-138] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN RUPCHAND MEGHWANI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-10-171] [REFERRED TO]
SUPREME COURT ADVOCATE-ON-RECORD ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2015-10-80] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL SAMDARIA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-4-85] [REFERRED TO]
SWAROOP YADAV VS. RAKESH KUMAR YADAV [LAWS(MPH)-2018-10-149] [REFERRED TO]
JACOB STEPHEN; G SIVAPRASAD; PADMINI SUDHEESH VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS [LAWS(KER)-2015-10-288] [REFERRED]
CHIRAG BHANU SINGH VS. HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2024-9-9] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH CHOUBEY VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2019-8-76] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH SHUKLA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2016-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT ROSHAN SURYAVANSHI VS. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-7-483] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH SAHU VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2016-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA PANDEY VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2016-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
BABIE SHIRIN VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2020-2-696] [REFERRED TO]
MATHEW Z.PULIKUNNEL VS. CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2022-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
D. RAMGANESH (WP. NO.37769 OF 2016) VS. TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP.BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY, CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2017-3-35] [REFERRED TO]
C J JOVESON VS. CHIEF JUSTICE OF KERALA HIGH COURT, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2018-5-121] [REFERRED TO]
JADUNATH SAHU VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2020-4-9] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN SINGH CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF C.G.& OTHERS [LAWS(CHH)-2016-12-20] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA JATAV VS. STATE OF M. P. [LAWS(MPH)-2020-8-376] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA KUMAR BAGHERWAL, S/O LATE B C BAGHERWAL VS. CHHATTISGARH KAMDHENU VISHWAVIDYALAYA, HQ [LAWS(CHH)-2018-2-69] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The issue of selection and elevation to the office of a High Court Judge has engaged the attention of this Court. The issue of such selection reflecting transparency, objectivity and constitutional sustainability has engaged the attention of this Court since this cause came to be espoused and dealt with by a nine-Judge Bench of this Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India, 1993 4 SCC 441, more particularly known as Second Judges case.
The said decision also became a subject matter of a Presidential Reference being Special Reference No.1 of 1998 that was answered again by a nine-Judge Bench reported in PRESIDENTIAL REFERENCE, 1998 7 SCC 739.
(2.)One of the issues involved in both these decisions has been issue of judicial review of appointments as a High Court Judge or a Supreme Court Judge. The Second Judges case answered it in paragraphs 480 to 482 of the aforesaid decision and the Special Reference also answered the same emphasising the limited scope of judicial review and restrained the justiciability of such recommendations and appointment of Judges.
(3.)More recently, the issue with regard to the elevation of a High Court Judge on a recommendation of the collegium came to be scrutinised in a challenge raised before the Allahabad High Court that came to be finally decided by this Court in Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India, 2009 8 SCC 273. It was again held therein following the aforesaid decisions that suitability of a recommendee and the consultation are not subject to judicial review but the issue of lack of eligibility or an effective consultation can be scrutinised for which a writ of quo warranto would lie.
The said decision also became a subject matter of a Presidential Reference being Special Reference No.1 of 1998 that was answered again by a nine-Judge Bench reported in PRESIDENTIAL REFERENCE, 1998 7 SCC 739.
(2.)One of the issues involved in both these decisions has been issue of judicial review of appointments as a High Court Judge or a Supreme Court Judge. The Second Judges case answered it in paragraphs 480 to 482 of the aforesaid decision and the Special Reference also answered the same emphasising the limited scope of judicial review and restrained the justiciability of such recommendations and appointment of Judges.
(3.)More recently, the issue with regard to the elevation of a High Court Judge on a recommendation of the collegium came to be scrutinised in a challenge raised before the Allahabad High Court that came to be finally decided by this Court in Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India, 2009 8 SCC 273. It was again held therein following the aforesaid decisions that suitability of a recommendee and the consultation are not subject to judicial review but the issue of lack of eligibility or an effective consultation can be scrutinised for which a writ of quo warranto would lie.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.