SC dismisses petition challenging recommendation of this HC Collegium for elevation of Judges [Read Order]

The Supreme Court of India on Friday has dismissed a writ petition filed before the court against the recommendations made by the Madras High Court Collegium for the appointment of the High Judges.

The petition was filed by the eight judicial officers who alleged that the Madras High Court Collegium has ignored their names for the appointment as District Judges and instead recommendations of their juniors for the elevation as judges of the High Court, were made.

“The short grievance of the petitioners is that despite being the senior most in the cadre of  District Judges, they have been overlooked and their juniors now recommended for elevation to the High Court as Judges” contented the Counsel for the Petitioner.

The Supreme Court Bench Comprising of Chief Justice of India, S A Bobade, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice V. Ramasubramanian while dismissing the petition held that the claim of the petitioner is tenable and the present writ petition is misconceived.

The petitioner has contended that interpretation of Explanation (a) of Article 217 of Indian Constitution in such a manner that only a person who resigned from Judicial service and became an Advocate will be eligible to club both the periods, will result in unfair and hostile discrimination of Judicial Officers and will also be violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

The Apex Court has held that the recommendations made by the Madras High Court Collegium is not discriminatory in nature and not the violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner cannot invoke explanation (a) of the Article 217 to club the experience they have at the bar as an advocate with their experience as judicial officer, to claim eligibility for considering them for elevation as the Judges of High Court.

“Article 217(2) merely prescribes the eligibility criteria and the method of computation of the same. If a person is found to have satisfied the eligibility criteria, then he must take his place in one of the queues. There are 2 separate queues, one from judicial service  and  another from the  Bar. One cannot stand in one queue by virtue of his status on the date of consideration of his name for elevation and at the same time keep a towel in the other queue, so that he can claim to be within the zone of consideration from either of the two or from a combination of both.”

Case Details:

Case title: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1172 OF 2019

Petitioner- R. POORNIMA AND ORS.  

Respondent- UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.  

Bench: CJI, S A Bobade and Justice AS Bopanna and Justice V. Ramasubramanian

Read Order @LatestLaws.com