Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Increasing the strength of Supreme Court judges from 31 to 34, Justices Krishna Murari, SR Bhat, V Ramasubramanian and Hrishikesh Roy have been appointed as Supreme Court judges. The judges took oath in the CJI’s court at 10:30 AM today.
Justice Krishna Murari
Born in a lawyer family of Uttar Pradesh on 9 July 1958, Justice Murari passed LL.B. from the Allahabad University, Allahabad and enrolled as an Advocate on 23 December 1981. He started practice in the Allahabad High Court on Civil, Constitutional, Company and Revenue matters. In his 22 years career as a lawyer he served as Standing Counsel of Uttar Pradesh State Yarn Company, Northern Railway Primary Co-operative Bank, Uttar Pradesh State Textile Corporation etc. He also appeared for Bundelkhand University of Jhansi. Justice Murari was then appointed as an Additional Judge of the Allahabad High Court on 7 January 2004 and became the Permanent Judge in 2005.[3] On 2 June 2018 he was elevated in the post of the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Chandigarh.
Justice Shripathi Ravindra Bhat
Born on 21 October 1958, at Mysore, Justice S Ravindra Bhat did his LLB from Campus Law Centre, Delhi University (1982) after completing his Bachelor of Arts (Hons) in English from Hindu College, Delhi University, 1979.
He was enrolled with Delhi Bar Council in August of 1982. He practised before the Delhi High Court, Supreme Court, inter alia. His field of practice included public law, banking, education, labour and service, and indirect taxation. He assumed office as additional judge, Delhi High Court on 16 July, 2004, and became the permanent judge of Delhi High Court on 20 February, 2006. He was elevated to the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court on 5 May, 2019.
Justice V. Ramasubramanian
Born on 30 June, 1958. Justice Ramasubramanian graduated from the Madras Law College and was enrolled as a member of the Bar on 16 February, 1983.
After practicing for almost 23 years in High Court of Madras, City and Small Causes Court, State Consumer Commission & District Consumer Forum, Central and State Administrative Tribunals, Chennai, in civil and constitutional matters and specialising in service matters, he was appointed as an additional judge of the Madras High Court on 31 July, 2006, and was later made a permanent judge on 9 November, 2009.
He was transferred at his own request to the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh with effect from 27 April, 2016.
After the bifurcation and the creation of a separate high court for the State of Andhra Pradesh, he was retained as a judge of the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad from 1 January, 2019. He was sworn in as the Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court on 22nd June, 2019.
Justice Hrishikesh Roy
Born on 1 February 1960, Justice Roy passed LL.B. from University of Delhi in 1982. He was initially enrolled under the Bar Council of Delhi thereafter shifted to Guwahati. He served as the Senior Government Advocate for the State of Arunachal Pradesh, Standing Counsel for the Assam State Electricity Board and Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council.He was designated as Senior Advocate of Gauhati High Court on 21 December 2004. Roy became an Additional Judge of Gauhati High Court on 12 October 2006 and permanent Judge on 15 July 2008.[3] In his career he was the Executive Head of the Assam State Legal Services Authority and nominated as a member of the National Judicial Academic Council presided by the Chief Justice of India. On 29 May 2018 Justice Roy was transferred from the Gauhati High Court to Kerala High Court as the Acting Chief Justice. He became the permanent Chief Justice of the High Court on 8 August 2018 after the retirement of Justice Antony Dominic.
Supreme Court: After hearing Attorney General KK Venugopal, appearing for the Supreme Court and advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agarwal, the 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and N V Ramana, D Y Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ reserved the verdict in the matter where an RTI Activist had sought disclosure of information on appointment of judges, thereby bringing collegium under RTI.
For the past decade, the Supreme Court has refused to divulge information under RTI about the collegium’s confidential communications with the government. The collegium recommends judges for the High Courts and the apex court. The Supreme Court, after losing legal battles before the Central Information Commission (CIC) and the Delhi High Court, finally had to appeal to itself to protect the collegium’s workings.
AG represented the Supreme Court’s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), who is the authority tasked to respond to RTI queries related to the court. He argued before the Court that opening up the “highly-sensitive” correspondence of the Supreme Court’s collegium and its workings to the Right to Information(RTI) regime would make judges and the government “shy” and “destroy” judicial independence. He also asserted that if the RTI will be applied to the collegium, its member judges would not be able to sit back and have a free and frank discussion for fear that their confidential views may later come into the public domain.
He said,
“If reasons for his rejection come into public domain, will a judge be able to function independently? The entire future of the judge is ruined. The public, litigants lose their confidence in him. A judge whose integrity has been questioned and overlooked for appointment or elevation, is handicapped. He cannot go to the press to clear the air. Disclosure of highly sensitive communication under RTI will risk the very existence of the judicial way of functioning. So, the information should be kept confidential.”
Acknowledging that the right to know was part of the right to free speech, AG said the right to free speech was, however, subject to reasonable restrictions.
On the question of disclosure of personal assets of judges, AG argued even under RTI was an “unwarranted intrusion” into their privacy.
Arguing on behalf of RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agarwal, advocate Prashant Bhushan said that the Court has always been on forefront of right to information and transparency. He said that even in SP Gupta judgment, the 7-judge bench said that non disclosure of information would cause greater harm to public interest. He further argued that even in the absence of RTI Act, the Court has held that candidates contesting elections should disclose their criminal antecedents.
He said,
“You have asked centre to follow transparency in appointment in other wings of the Government. You can’t claim exemption from disclosure of information relating to appointment of judges.”
He also said that people are entitled to know about appointment of judges in a democracy. He told the Court,
“you have given judgments on transparency but deny information when it comes to you.”
He also said,
“An honest officer making a decision will not be cowed down by the fear that his reasoning or decision will become public tomorrow.”
When the bench said that a person may not want the information relating to his sexual orientation to be disclosed or the fact that he/she is suffering from schizophrenia, Bhushan agreed and said that Section 10 of RTI Act that provides exemption will be applicable in such cases.
On the issue of disclosure of assets of the judges, Bhushan said that the RTI applicant is merely which judges submitted there asset details to CJI.
(With inputs from The Hindu)
Shri SP Gupta, Senior Advocate turns 90 today, on the ides of March. He has served as the Advocate General for the State of Uttar Pradesh twice.
Wouldn’t it be unfair if we do not run through the historical ‘First Judges Case’ on his 90th Birthday? We thought so too.
As the name of the case suggests, Mr SP Gupta played a key role in the case that paved way for Judicial Independence that consequently resulted into creation of the collegium system for appointment of judges. A 7-judge bench of P.N. Bhagawati, A.C. Gupta, Syed Murtaza Fazal Ali, V D. Tulzapurkar, D.A. Desai, R.S. Pathak and E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ decided the case that is famously known as the ‘First Judges Case’ or the ‘Judges Transfer case’.
Justice Bhagwati said that the Court will readily respond even to a letter addressed by such individual acting pro bono publico, thereby, making the procedure of approaching the Court more flexible. He said:
“It is true that there are rules made by this Court prescribing the procedure for moving this Court for relief under Article 32 and they require various formalities to be gone through by a person seeking to approach this Court. But it must not be forgotten that procedure is but a handmaiden of justice and the cause of justice can never be allowed to be thwarted by any procedural technicalities. The court would therefore unhesitatingly and without the slightest qualms of conscience cast aside the technical rules of procedure in the exercise of its dispensing power and treat the letter of the public-minded individual as a writ petition and act upon it.”
Justice Venkataramiah, in his verdict, wrote that under the scheme of Article 217 the power to appoint a Judge of a High Court is vested in the President. However, If there are conflicting opinions the President has to weigh them after giving due consideration to each of them and take a decision on the question. He said:
“While he is bound to consult the authorities mentioned therein and take into consideration their opinions, he is not bound by their opinions. Ordinarily one does not expect the President to make an appointment by ignoring all the adverse opinions expressed by the functionaries mentioned in Article 217.”
“The opinion of each of the three constitutional functionaries is entitled to equal weight and it is not possible to say that the opinion of the Chief Justice of India must have primacy over the opinions of the other two constitutional functionaries. If primacy were to be given to the opinion of the Chief Justice of India, it would, in effect and substance, amount to concurrence, because giving primacy would mean that his opinion must prevail over that of the Chief Justice of the High Court and the Governor of the State, which means that the Central Government must accept his opinion.” – Justice Bhagwati
“The consultation has to be meaningful, purposeful, result oriented and of substance. … All the parties involved in the process of consultation must put all the material at its command relevant to the subject under discussion before all other authorities to be consulted. Nothing can be kept back. Nothing can be withheld. Nothing can be left for the eye of any particular constitutional functionary.” – Justice Desai
It was, however, clarified that the President will have the right to differ from the other constitutional functionaries i.e. Chief Justice of India, Chief Justice of the concerned High Court and the Governor of the State, for cogent reasons and take a contrary view.
When it was argued that the Executive should have no voice at all in the matter of appointment of Judges of the superior courts in India as the independence of the judiciary which is a basic feature of the Constitution would be in serious jeopardy if the executive can interfere with the process of their appointment, Justice Venkataramiah said:
“It is difficult to hold that merely because the power of appointment is with the executive, the independence of the judiciary would become impaired. The true principle is that after such appointment the executive should have no scope to interfere with the work of a Judge.”
It was this case, where the idea of introducing collegium system was first tabled. Justice Bhagwati, in his judgment, wrote:
“We would rather suggest that there must be a collegium to make recommendation to the President in regard to appointment of a Supreme Court or High Court Judge. The recommending authority should be more broad based and there should be consultation with wider interests. If the collegium is composed of persons who are expected to have knowledge of the persons who may be fit for appointment on the Bench and of qualities required for appointment and this last requirement is absolutely essential — it would go a long way towards securing the right kind of Judges, who would be truly independent in the sense we have indicated above and who would invest the judicial process with significance and meaning for the deprived and exploited sections of humanity.”
The SP Gupta verdict was followed by two more cases that questioned the interference of executive in the appointment of judges.
“The expression “consultation with the Chief Justice of India” in Articles 217(1) and 222(1) of the Constitution of India requires consultation with a plurality of Judges in the formation of the opinion of the Chief Justice of India. The sole individual opinion of the Chief Justice of India does not constitute “consultation” within the meaning of the said articles.”
The President appointed Justice Debasish Kar Gupta (senior-most Judge of Calcutta HC), to perform the duties of the office of the Chief Justice of Calcutta HC, w.e.f. 25-09-2018 consequent upon the retirement of Shri Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya (current Chief Justice of Calcutta HC).
Ministry of Law and Justice
The President in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, is pleased to appoint Shri Justice Krishna Singh and Shri Justice Rajiv Lochan Mehrotra, Additional Judges of the Allahabad High Court, to be Judges of the Allahabad High Court with effect from the date they assume charge of their offices.
Ministry of Law and Justice
The President in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 224 of the Constitution of India appointed (i) Shri Lanusungkum Jamir, and (ii) Shri Manash Ranjan Pathak, to be Additional Judges of the Gauhati High Court, for a period of one year with effect from 22nd November, 2017, and (iii) Smt. Rumi Kumari Phukan, to be an Additional Judge of the Gauhati High Court, for a period of one year with effect from 07th January, 2018.
Ministry of Law and Justice
Supreme Court: The Bench of R. Banumathi and Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ gave split decision in the writ of certiorari filed by the petitioner seeking the quashment of the Notification dated 16th February, 2015 issued by the High Court of Manipur, whereby the petitioner was declared unsuccessful in viva-voce conducted by the High Court of Manipur for appointment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) in Manipur Judicial Services Grade-I. The matter will be placed before a larger Bench for final adjudication.
The Impugned Notification notified that “no one shall be declared pass and selected for appointment unless he secures minimum 40% from the interview”. The petitioner, however, was not able to secure 40% in the interview and hence, argued that the marks obtained in the viva-voce should be merely added to the marks obtained in the written examination to finalize the merit list and it was not permissible to have fixed a minimum bench mark for the viva-voce as it amounts to change in the criteria of selection in the midst of the selection process.
Banumathi, J rejected the said contention and said that under the MJS Rules a scheme of converting the numerical marks of each question into an appropriate grade, according to the formula given in the table and re-converting into grades, is stipulated. In the table, the percentage of marks and Grade prescribe that marks below 40% is Grade ‘F’ which means ‘Fail’. Keeping in view the Rules and the table converting numerical marks into Grades and the final Select List that is prepared by adding cumulative grade value obtained in the written examination and the interview/viva-voce, fixing 40% for interview/viva-voce out of total marks of 50 is in consonance with MJS Rules and it will not amount to change in the criteria of selection in the midst of selection process. The object of conducting interview/viva-voce examination has been rightly stated in the Rules to assess suitability of the candidate by judging the mental alertness, knowledge of law, clear and original exposition, intellectual depth and the like. Hence, having regard to the seniority of the post which is District Judge (Entry Level), the High Court cannot be faulted with for exercising its residuary right reserved in its favour by prescribing cut-off marks for the interview. Also, the petitioner participated in the selection process and only because in the final result the petitioner being unsuccessful, he cannot turn around and contend that the criteria for selection was changed.
Shiva Kirti Singh, J, on the other hand, said that the Rules and the instructions clearly demonstrate that there was no cut-off mark or pass mark for the viva voce examination in the past. Not providing any pass mark for the viva voce while so providing for the written examination clearly indicates that the Rules deliberately chose not to prescribe any cut-off for the viva voce. The statutory rules did prescribe a particular mode of selection which did not require any pass mark for the viva voce examination and it had to be given strict adherence accordingly, at least till the ongoing recruitment process got concluded. Since the procedure was already prescribed by the Rules, in the present case there was clear impediment in law in the way of the High Court in proceeding to lay down minimum pass mark for the viva voce test which was meant only for the petitioner as he was the lone candidate successful in the written examination. Although no case of bias has been pleaded, the impugned action would validly attract the criticism of malice in law. Also, the petitioner being the lone candidate having passed in the written examination, it matters little whether minimum marks for interview were introduced before or after calling him for interview. [Salam Samarjeet Singh v. High Court of Manipur at Imphal, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1120, decided on 07.10.2016]
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, the President on 1st of September, 2016 appointed Shri N. Authinathan, to be a Judge of the Madras High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.
Ministry of Law and Justice
On 24.06.2015, the President of India appointed Shri Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, senior-most Judge of the Karnataka High Court, as the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court with effect from the date Shri Justice Dhirendra Hiralal Waghela relinquishes charge of the office of the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court consequent upon his transfer as the Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court.
On 19.06.2015, the President of India appointed (i) Shri Zaka Azizul Haq. (ii) Shri Shriram Kalpathi Rajendran (iii) Shri Gautam Shirish Patel (iv) Shri Atul Sharachchandra Chandurkar (v) Smt. Revati Prashant Mohite Dere (vi) Shri Mahesh Sharadchandra Sonak and (vii) Shri Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge, to be Additional Judges of the Bombay High Court, for a period of three months with effect from 21.06.2015.
-Ministry of Law & Justice
On 24.06.2015, the President of India appointed Shri Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, senior-most Judge of the Karnataka High Court, as the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court with effect from the date Shri Justice Dhirendra Hiralal Waghela relinquishes charge of the office of the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court consequent upon his transfer as the Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court.
-Ministry of Law & Justice
