Hot Off The PressNews

Press Release

News Broadcasters Association (NBA) is pleased to announce the appointment of Justice A. K. Sikri, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, as Chairperson of the News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA). He will assume office on May 26, 2019.

NBSA is an independent body for self-regulation of 24×7 news channels, who are members of the NBA. Justice (Retd.) A. K. Sikri will succeed Justice (Retd.) R. V. Raveendran, who completes his term on May 25, 2019.

“In a statement, NBA President Rajat Sharma said that Justice Sikri’s vast experience in judiciary and an impeccable record as a judge would definitely strengthen self- regulation and NBSA. NBSA he said, is a self-regulatory body that implements the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards and Guidelines for its Member news broadcasters. It is an independent body which is completely free from any interference from the NBA, Sharma added.”


[Press Release dt. 14-05-2019]

News Broadcasters Association

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Ali Mohammad Magrey, J. dismissed a Writ Petition on the basis of formal closure of ‘Rehbar-e-Taleem Teachers’ (ReT) scheme by Government’s order.

A writ petition was filed by the petitioner requesting the High Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to select the petitioner and appoint him on the basis of merit eligibility against the post of ReT in a newly opened school. Respondent 7, who was placed at Serial 1, got less percentage than the petitioner, who was placed at Serial 3, and also her certificate was not certified by the University Grant Commission. The petitioner raised an objection to that.

The learned senior Additional Advocate General, entering on the behalf of the respondents, submitted that the government has formally sanctioned the closure of the ReT scheme vide Government Order No. 919-Edu of 2018, and therefore no indefeasible right has accrued to the petitioner claiming her appointment.

The Court held that since the government had formally withdrawn the appointment under ReT scheme, the Court could not direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner against a non-existing position. The Court was of the view that when the Government had taken a policy decision canceling all the advertisements for engagement of ReT,  the Court could not direct appointment against such post.

Hence, the writ petition was held to be devoid of any merit and dismissed in limine. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the Government Order No. 919-Edu of 2018.[Rayees Qadir Padder v. State of J&K, 2019 SCC OnLine J&K 418, decided on 07-05-2019]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Justice A.A. Kureshi is the senior-most Judge from Gujarat High Court and at present is functioning, on transfer, in Bombay High Court. Having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that Justice A. A Kureshi is suitable in all respects for being appointed as Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Collegium resolves to recommend accordingly.


[Resolution dt. 10-05-2019]

Collegium Resolutions

Appointments & TransfersNews

Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ. is of the considered view that Justice V. Ramasubramanian is suitable in all respects for being appointed as Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The Collegium resolves to recommend accordingly.


[Resolution dt. 10-05-2019]

Collegium Resolutions

Appointments & TransfersNews

Justice D.N. Patel is a senior puisne Judge from Gujarat High Court and at present is functioning, on transfer, in Jharkhand High Court. Having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that Justice D.N. Patel is suitable in all respects for being appointed as Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. The Collegium resolves to recommend accordingly.


[Resolution dt. 10-05-2019]

Collegium Resolutions

Appointments & TransfersNews

The Collegium considers that the following two persons are deserving and suitable in all respects for being appointed as Judges of the Supreme Court of India:

1. Mr. Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai,
Judge, Bombay High Court, and

2. Mr. Justice Surya Kant,
Chief Justice, Himachal Pradesh High Court
(PHC: Punjab & Haryana)

“While recommending the names of Mr Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai and Mr Justice Surya Kant, the Collegium has taken into consideration combined seniority on all-India basis of Chief Justices and senior puisne Judges of High Courts, apart from their competence, conduct and integrity. The Collegium has also kept in mind the desirability of giving due representation on the Bench of the Supreme Court, as far as possible, to all the High Courts as well as to all sections of the society including those belonging to SC/ST/OBC categories, women and minorities. We are also conscious of the fact that some High Courts have remained unrepresented in the Supreme Court.”

In view of the foregoing, the Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde, N.V. Ramana, Arun Mishra and R.F. Nariman, JJ. resolves to recommend that appointments be made in the following order:
1. Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, and
2. Justice Surya Kant


[Resolution dt. 08-05-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Stating that the essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide, the bench of Arun Mishra and Navin Sinha, JJ said,

“The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re­writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review.”

The Court further held that if the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law.

“In no case can the Court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.”

The Court was hearing the appeal filed against the order of the High Court holding that candidates possessing the requisite years of experience in research and development of drugs and testing of the same, are also eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Commissioner (Drugs) and Drug Inspectors under separate advertisements dated 04.01.2012 and 31.03.2015.

It was submitted before the Court that the academic qualifications coupled with the requisite years of practical experience in the manufacturing and testing of drugs were essential qualifications for appointment. Research experience in a research and development laboratory was a desirable qualification which may have entitled such a person to a preference only. The latter experience could not be equated with and considered to be at par with the essential eligibility to be considered for appointment. It was argued that the High Court erred in misreading the advertisement to redefine the desirable qualification as an essential qualification by itself.

The Court said that the plain reading of the advertisement provides that a degree in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical Chemistry or in medicine with specialization in Clinical Pharmacology or Microbiology from a University coupled with the requisite years of experience thereafter in manufacturing or testing of drugs were essential qualifications. Preference could be given to those possessing the additional desirable qualification of research experience in the synthesis and testing of drugs in a research laboratory.

The Court also said that

“an expert committee may have been constituted and which examined the documents before calling the candidates for interview cannot operate as an estoppel against the clear terms of the advertisement to render an ineligible candidate eligible for appointment.”

[Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 652, decided on 03.05.2019]

Appointments & TransfersNews

President appoints the following four lawyers as the Judges of Patna High Court:

  • Anjani Kumar Sharan
  • Anil Kumar Sinha
  • Prabhat Kumar Singh
  • Partha Sarthy

The above-mentioned are to be Judges of the Patna High Court, in that order of seniority, with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices.

Ministry of Law and Justice

[Order dt. 15-04-2019]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Appointment of following four Judicial Officers as Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and three Judicial Officers as Judges of the Telangana High Court:

1 Ms. B.S. Bhanumathi (A.P.)
2 Shri Ch. Manavendranath Roy (A.P.)
3 Smt. P. Sree Sudha (Telangana)
4 Shri M.Venkata Ramana (A.P.)
5 Smt. C. Sumalatha (Telangana)
6 Shri A. Hari Haranadha Sarma (A.P.)
7 Shri N. Tukaramji (Telangana)

In order to ascertain suitability of the above-named recommendees mentioned at Sl. Nos. 3, 5 and 7 above, for elevation to the Telangana High Court, we have consulted our colleague conversant with the affairs of the Telangana High Court.

As regards recommendees at Sl. Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6 above, there is no sitting Judge in the Supreme Court outside the Collegium for being consulted for this purpose.

“The Collegium is of the considered view that S/Shri (1) Ch. Manavendranath Roy, and (2) M. Venkata Ramana (mentioned at Sl. Nos. 2 and 4 above) are suitable for being appointed as Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.”

As regards (1) Ms. B.S. Bhanumathi, (2) Smt. P. Sree Sudha, (3) Smt. C. Sumalatha (4) Shri A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, and (5) Shri N. Tukaramji (mentioned at Sl. Nos.1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 above), consideration of the proposal for their elevation is deferred for the present.

Collegium resolves to recommend that S/Shri (1) Ch. Manavendranath Roy, and (2) M. Venkata Ramana, Judicial Officers, be appointed as Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice.


Collegium Resolutions

[Dated: 15-04-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: The Bench of Madhuresh Prasad, J. allowed a civil writ petition filed by a constable who was dismissed from his service without pointing out infirmity in his appointment and also without affording him a hearing in the matter.

Petitioner herein was dismissed from his service as a constable in the Bihar Police, pursuant to scrutiny by the Director General of Police and Inspector General of various appointments made earlier. It was found that the appointment of the petitioner along with others was illegally made in an irregular manner. The instant petition was filed assailing the said order of dismissal.

Respondent’s objection was that the petition, having been filed ten years after petitioner’s dismissal, was barred by delay and laches. Counsel for the petitioner Mr Radha Mohan Pandey submitted that the order of dismissal was without any show cause or opportunity and without holding a regular enquiry or departmental proceeding against the petitioner, even though he had worked in the police force as a confirmed employee on the post of constable for about 12 years.

The Court opined that petitioner’s dismissal was done at the dictate of a higher authority on the basis of a perception that in the period when he was appointed under the special circumstances, all constables were appointed irregularly. This order did not show as to what was the infirmity in his appointment. Also, the said order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. As such, the dismissal order was unsustainable in law.

With regards to the objection of delay, the Court noted that petitioner had filed an appeal against dismissal order in the year 2014, and pursuant to dismissal thereof the present petition was filed in the year 2016.

In view of the above, the order dismissing petitioner from service was quashed and he was directed to be reinstated.[Shambhu Nath Tiwary v. State of Bihar,  2019 SCC OnLine Pat 394, Order dated 13-03-2019]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ., recommends the appointment of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat of Delhi High Court to be the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court.

Justice S. Ravindra Bhat is the senior-most Judge from Delhi High Court and is functioning in that High Court since his elevation. Having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium finds Justice S. Ravindra Bhat suitable in all respects for being appointed as Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court. The Collegium resolves to recommend accordingly.

While making the above recommendation, the Collegium is conscious of the fact that consequent upon the proposed appointment, there will be three Chief Justices from Delhi High Court, which has the special distinction of being the High Court for the national capital.


[Dated: 08-04-2019]

Collegium Resolutions

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

Appointment of Justice P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Judge, Kerala High Court as Chief Justice in Chhattisgarh High Court.

Collegium comprising of Ranjana Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ., recommends the appointment of Justice P.R. Ramachandra Menon who is the senior-most Judge from Kerala High Court and has been functioning there since his elevation as Judge of that High Court. Having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium finds Justice P.R. Ramachandra Menon suitable in all respects for being appointed as Chief Justice of the Chhattisgarh High Court. The Collegium resolves to recommend accordingly.

While making the above recommendation, the Collegium is conscious of the fact that consequent upon the proposed appointment, there will be two Chief Justices from Kerala High Court.


[Dated: 8-04-2019]

Collegium Resolutions

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

Appointment of Justice A.K. Mittal, Judge, Punjab & Haryana High Court as Chief Justice in Meghalaya High Court.

Justice A.K. Mittal is the senior-most Judge from Punjab and Haryana High Court and is functioning in that High Court since his
elevation. Having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium finds Mr Justice A.K. Mittal suitable in all respects for being appointed as Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court. The Collegium resolves to recommend accordingly.

While making the above recommendation the Collegium is conscious of the fact that consequent upon the proposed appointment there will be two Chief Justices from the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which serves two States and is the third largest High Court in the country, with a sanctioned strength of 85 Judges.


[Dated: 08-04-2019]

Collegium Resolutions

Supreme Court of India

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: The Bench of V. Chitambaresh and T.V. Anilkumar, JJ. dismissed writ appeals filed by administrative officers of this Court, assailing the invalidation of Memorandum pertaining to the appointment of temporary Munsiff-Magistrate.

An Official Memorandum and Guidelines were issued by this Court on 18-06-2018 for the appointment of temporary Munsiff- Magistrate. The Memorandum verbatim reproduced Rule 5(3) of the Kerala Judicial Service Rules, 1991, but Rule 5(3)(viii) pertaining to eligibility was omitted therefrom. As a result, officers working in the High Court, Subordinate Courts, Advocate General’s Office and Law Department in the Government Secretariat were excluded from consideration. The Memorandum also prescribed age limit of 52 years as on 01-06-2018 in order to be eligible to apply, though the Rules did not impose any such restriction.

A writ petition was filed by the Judicial Staff Organisation praying for quashing of Official Memorandum and Guidelines, and for a direction to issue a fresh notification in tune with the Rules. The learned Single Judge invalidated the process of selection holding that the same was not in accordance with the Rules and hence arbitrary. Hence, the instant appeal.

The Court noted that the method of appointment to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate was by direct recruitment and transfer in accordance with Rule 5(3) of the Rules. The categories from which recruitment by transfer could be made included officers working in the High Court, Subordinate Courts, Advocate General’s Office and Law Department. A category of officers eligible under Rule 5(3)(viii) of the Rules, as it then stood, was excluded from consideration in Official Memorandum and Guidelines without assigning any reason. The prescription of the age limit of 52 years was also a condition imported in Memorandum, though not sanctioned by the Rules

It was held that the Governor of Kerala (appointing authority for Munsiff-Magistrate) had, in consultation with the High Court, made the Judicial Service Rules. Thus, these Rules were required to be followed scrupulously. Any deviation therefrom attracted the vice of arbitrariness, rendering the entire selection process.

In view of the above, the instant writ appeals were dismissed.[K.K. Ashok v. Kerala Civil Judicial Staff Organisation, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 1081, Order dated 02-04-2019]

Appointments & TransfersNews

President appoints the following 14 Additional Judges of the Bombay High Court as Permanent Judges:

  1. Sandeep Kashinath Shinde
  2. Rohit Baban Deo
  3. Bharati Harish Dangre
  4. Sarang Vijaykumar Kotwal
  5. Riyaz Iqbal Chagla
  6. Manish Pitale
  7. Sunil Kesharao Kotwal
  8. Arun Digambarrao Upadhye
  9. Mangesh Shivajirao Patil
  10. Arun Madhav Dhavale
  11. Prithviraj Keshavrao Chavan
  12. Murlidhar Ganpatrao Giratkar
  13. Viba Vasant Kankanwadi
  14. Sopan Mahadu Gavhane

[Notification dt. 05-04-2019]

Ministry of Law and Justice

Appointments & TransfersNews

President appointed following Additional Judges of the Madras High Court as Permanent Judges:

  1. Justice V. Bhavani Subbaroyan
  2. Justice A.D. Jagdish Chandira
  3. Justice G.R. Swaminathan
  4. Justice Abdul Quddhose
  5. Justice M. Dhandapani
  6. Justice Pondicherry Daivasigamani Audikesavalu

[Notification dt. 05-04-2019]

Ministry of Law and Justice