P L LAKHANPAL Vs. AJIT NATH ROY CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four writ petitions were heard together. Substantially, they raise the same questions. Primarily the writ petitioners have prayed for a writ of quo warranto to challenge the appointment on April 25, 1973 with effect from April 26, 1973 of Justice A N. Ray, one of the respondents herein. Judge of the Supreme Court of India, as the Chief Justice of India on the retirement of Justice S. M. Sikri, the then Chief Justice of India. The respondents to the petitions are the Union of India; Mrs. Indira Gandhi (Prime Minister of India): Mr. H.R. Gokhale (Minister of Law and Justice) and Justice A. N. Rav. Counter affidavits have been filed by and on behalf of the Union of India and Mr.H.R. Gokhale. Originally, Mr. Kumaramanglam, the then Minister of Steel and Mines, was also in the array of respondents but his name was deleted on his demise.

(2.) The counter affidavits have replied to the facts "elating to the merits of the petitions and at the same time contain demurrers, speaking generally, to jurisdiction of this Court to issue the writ and to the maintainability of the petitions and for that reason it was thought proper to . first hear three of the preliminary objections as they were stated to go to the root of the matter.

(3.) It is necessary to state the facts shortly to furnish a backdrop for the discussion particularly because, admittedly, preliminary objections have to be decided on the assumption that the facts alleged by the petitioners are correct. I would like to emphasise this aspect of the matter because my opinion is not to be taken to be a finding as to the truth or correctness or otherwise of the facts alleged. A further fact may also stated here, namely, that Justice A. N. Ray was appointed the Chief Justice of India by a warrant under the hand and seal of the President of India in pursuance of clause (2) of Article 124 of the Constitution.