- (1.) A. N. Varma, J. The petitioners by means of the present writ petition, which has been styled as Public Interest Litigation petition pray for following reliefs: " (i) To issue a writ of Mandamus commanding opp. Parties to appoint as many as Additional Judges in High Courts to clear the pendency of the cases within a period of two years under Article 224 (1) of the Constitution of India as required to clear the pendency of the pending cases in Allahabad High Court (8, 15, 170 pending cases); Madrass High Court (4, 06, 958 pending cases); Mumbai High Court (3, 62, 950 pending cases) and Calcutta High Court (2, 68, 358 pending cases) upto December, 2006, so that the said pending cases in the High Courts may be cleared/disposed of within a period of two years as per constitutional intent of Article 224 (1) of the Constitution of India providing the appointment of Additional Judges for two years if by reasons of any temporary increase in the business of High Courts or by reason of arrears of pending cases therein, as evident from the statement of Hon'ble Minister of Law and Justice in Rajya Sabha of Central Legislature published in Daily Newspaper "times OF INDIA, Lucknow" on 14. 8. 2007 quoted below: " THE TIMES OF INDIA, LUCKNOw TUESDAY, AUGUST 14, 2007, ALLAHABAD HC Tops Backlog List: The Allahabad High Court tops the list of High Courts in the country where the maximum number of cases are pending, the Rajya Sabha was informed on Monday. There were 8, 15, 170 cases pending in the Allahabad High Court followed by 4, 06, 958 in Madras High Court until December, 2006, Law and Justice Minister H. R. Bhardwaj said in reply. The Bombay High Court had 3, 62, 950 cases pending and Calcutta High Court, 2, 68, 358, he said. " (ii) To issue a writ of Mandamus commanding opp. Parties to make only apolitical appointment of High Court Judges in High Courts, under Article 217 (1) read with strengthen the fair, impartial, independent judiciary and the separation of powers from and amongst the Advocates practising in High Court on their own merit and conducting the cases of the citizens of India for the protection of fundamental, constitutional and statutory rights on its evasion by State authorities and performed more pious, hard onerous professional duties than their counterpart Advocates representing the State and Central Governments and its instrumentalities, rather, appointing the High Court Judges from amongst the Advocate, who procure their appointments as Advocate General, Additional Advocate General, Chief Standing Counsel and the Standing Counsel and Government Advocates of State and Additional. Solicitor General, Assistant Solicitor General and Standing Counsel of Central Government or Standing Counsels of the instrumentalities of the State and Central Government under the political consideration/influence and other extraneous considerations such as nepotism, castism and linealism, having no nexus with the fair, impartial and independent judiciary which is a basic structure of the Constitution of India. (iii) To issue a writ of Mandamus, commanding appropriate constitutional authorities/functionaries to evolve and explore the scientific "fair impartial and transparent mechanism", inter alia, providing the fair, reasonable, impartial, canalised and controlled guidelines for the appointment of Judges of High Courts, and governing the service condition for their incapacity and misbehaviour and notify them in public as the process of the appointment of the Judges of Higher Judiciary is public process and for the paramount welfare of the people of this democratic country and not a matter of secrecy of the present judicial collegium as now. And direct to the authorities concerned to consider and make appointment of the Judges of High Courts from amongst the fiercely, efficient and independent Advocates practising in High Courts on their own merit and conducting the cases of the citizens of India for the protection of their constitutional and statutory rights on its evasion by the State authorities and performed more pious, hard and onerous professional duties than their counterpart Advocates representing the State and Central Government and its instrumentalities, to eradicate and explode the present system (evolved through collegium w. e. f. 1993), inter alia, appointing the Judges of High Courts only from and amongst the Advocate who procured their appointment as Advocate General, Additional Advocate General, Chief Standing Counsel, Standing Counsels of the State Government and Additional Solicitor General, Assistant Solicitor General, Standing Counsels of the Central Government and standing Counsels of the instrumentalities of the Central and State Governments, which is evident from the records of High Courts which is a Court of record. (iv) To issue a writ of Mandamus commanding opp. Parties to consider and provide reservation to the entire judicial institution, established in Chapter IV, Part V and Chapter V of Part VI of the Constitution of India, as per constitutional interpretation of Articles 124, 216 and 217 in the light of Articles 14, 15 (4), 16 (4), 38, 46, 340 and the Preamble of Constitution of India at par with the reservation provided to the two wings of the Constitution, such as Central and State Legislature and executive provided under Articles 14, 15 (4), 16, 38, 46, 340, 93rd Amendment in Constitution and Preamble of the Constitution of India as per constitutional reservation scheme affirmed by the Apex Court in case of Indira Sawhneyv. Union of India, 1992 Supp. (3) SCC, 217 (9 Judges Constitution Bench), specially when the reservation has already been provided in lower judiciary as contemplated in Chapter VI of Part VI of the Constitution of India and the higher judiciary has been deprived from the reservation. (v) To issue a writ of Mandamus commanding opp. Parties to produce the records of appointments of Judges of High Courts w. e. f. 1993 on the basis of which the appointment of Judges of High Courts have been recommended by the collegium and appointed by the President of India as the same is neither secret after its implementation nor affecting sovereignty of the country. (vi) To issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court of Justice may think fit and proper under the circumstances of the present case. (vii) To award cost of the writ petition. "
(2.) PARTIES to the petition which have been impleaded are (1) Union of India, (2) Stale of Uttar Pradesh, (3) Collegium of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India through its Chairman, (4) Collegium of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through its Chairman. In para 2 of the writ petition, it has been averred that Bar Association of Advocates belonging to Rural India are interested for dispensation and adjudication of litigations by a fair, impartial and independent judiciary. According to petitioners a representation was submitted on 18. 4. 2006 followed by a reminder dated 14. 8. 2007 to the Chief Justice, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad with a copy to the Chief Justice of India, but to no avail. Sri G. S. L Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that considering and recommending the names of Advocates for their appointments as Judges of the High Court by the collegium is totally arbitrary and for extraneous considerations. According to him only those Advocates who are engaged as Law Officers/standing Counsels of Central Government and State Government and ifs instrumentalities, Corporations and companies practically with no merit, through their political affiliations and sycophancy procure appointment for the post of Judges of the High Court and Advocates practising in the High Court on their own merit are not being considered for such appointments. He further argued that in the matter of appointment cast considerations as well as political affiliations play an important role. Such action of the collegium according to him is not only subversive to entire Judicial Institution, but also to the sovereign, social, Democratic Republic of India. As per his submissions the constitutional provisions are not adhered to while recommending the names for appointment of Judges of the High Court.
(3.) THROUGHOUT the entire fabric of the writ petition wild allegations have been levelled against the collegium regarding the appointment. According to the learned Counsel, every appointment of Judges of the High Court w. e. f. 1993 are politically motivated, cast based and for extraneous considerations. It was further submitted that the opposite parties be directed to produce the record of the appointment of the Judges of the High Court w. e. f. 1993 on the basis of which they were recommended by the collegium appointed by the President of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court (2004) 3 S. C. C. 363, Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and others, has laid down the norms for entertaining a petition filed as Public Interest Litigation. It has also been emphasized that the Court has to be satisfied about the credentials of the applicant and prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him. In paras 4 and 14 the Apex Court observed as follows: "4. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes or vendetta to bring to terms a person, not of one's liking, or gain publicity or a facade for blackmail, the said petition has to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the issues involved in the petition case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding the "public interest" aspect. Public interest I'tigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation". If not properly and strictly regulated at least in certain vital areas or spheres and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreak vengeance, as well as to malign not only an incumbent-to-be in office but demoralise and deter reasonable or sensible and prudent people even agreeing to accept highly sensitive and responsible offices for fear of being brought into disrepute with baseless allegations. Theie must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and concrete or credible basis for maintaining a cause before Court and not merely an adventure of a knight errant borne out of wishful thinking. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. The credibility of such claims or litigations should be adjudged on the creditworthiness of the materials averred and not even on the credentials claimed of the person moving the Courts in such cases. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus stand/and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Janata Dal v. H. S. C/iowd/?aryand Kazilhendupdorjiv. Central Bureau of Investigation. A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. 14. The Court has to be satisfied about: (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike a balance between two conflicting interests : (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy- bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. ";