K. N. Goyal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the President of India transferring Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra, the then Chief Justice of this Court to Calcutta High Court in the same capacity and against the appointment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. N. Shukla as Acting Chief Justice of this Court. The petition has been filed by three learned Advocates of this court by way of public interest litigation.
(2.) WE have heard Sri Virendra Singh one of the petitioners, who has argued the petition in person, at some length. It has been concluded by decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 SCC (Supplement) 87 that it is open to the President, under Article 222 of the Constitution, to transfer Judges including Chief Justice, without their consent, from one court to another. There are observations in the same decision favouring appointment of Chief Justice of a High Court from outside the State. In view of this decision petitioners contended that if Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra was to be transferred from Allahabad then some one from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh should have been appointed as Chief Justice of this court in his place and no appointment of an Acting Chief Justice from among Judges of this State should have been made. It has also been contended that an Acting Chief Justice continues in office at the mere pleasure of the President and that this situation cannot be conducive to the maintenance of the independence of the judiciary. In this connection by way of analogy, the observations of the Supreme Court in S. P. Gupta's case (supra) disfavouring appointments of Additional Judges to a High Court when permanent vacancies are available have been relied upon. It has also been contended that the impugned transfer has been ordered under pressure of the Allahabad High Court Bar Association and some of the members of that Association who for oblique motives were inimically disposed towards Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra. It has been contended that if this type of pressure were allowed to prevail, it would again be destructive of the independence of the judiciary. Further it has been contended that reasonableness of the exercise of even a discretionary power is also open to the judicial review in the light of settled principles. It has also been contended that caste considerations have prevailed with the Government in making the impugned appointment -of Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice. Having given our careful consideration to the arguments of Sri Virendra Singh on behalf of the petitioners we find no merit in this petition. The Constitution itself indicates in Article 223 read with Article 216 that whenever there is any vacancy in the office of Chief Justice it would be necessary for the President to make appointment of any Acting Chief Justice. There is no statutory requirement for a vacancy to be filed immediately by appointment of a permanent successor. No limit of time for the duration of such appointment has been laid down either, and it is not open to this court to specify any time limit as suggested on behalf of the petitioners. Nor is it open to this Court to say, as further suggested, that the Acting Chief Justice's recommendations for appointment of Judges under Article 217 should not be entertained. It is true that the policy, as announced by the Government of India is to have a Chief Justice of every High Court from outside the State concerned; but it is well settled that the implementation of any policy may be gradual and all appointments and transfers throughout the country in pursuance of the policy need not be simultaneous. It has been argued that in the press communique issued on behalf of the Government of India, announcing the said policy there is no mention of Article 223 in connection with the implementation of the policy. This does not, however, imply that the applicability of the provisions of Article 223 is ruled out. As the general policy of appointing Chief Justices from outside is now being implemented, and admittedly, it has already been implemented in respect of most of High Courts, the question of what views were being held by certain advocates at Allahabad on the question of transfer of Hon'ble Satish Chandra, C. J., has become irrelevant. The allegations of casteism are too vague, insubstantial and conjectural in nature to merit any serious consideration by a court of law. The mere fact that a permanent appointment of Chief Justice in this Court has not immediately been made from outside the State cannot invalidate the transfer of the Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra or the appointment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. N. Shukla, as Acting Chief Justice.
(3.) THE writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. Applications for interim relief accordingly stand rejected. Petition dismissed.;