Under Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India, which provides that the advice of the Council of Minister to the President cannot be questioned in the Court of Law. Only a person who has suffered legal injury can maintain a writ petition and no third party can be permitted. The petitioner has no right of locus standi on the ground that the petitioner had not suffered due to circular issued by the Law Minister or due to short term appointment by the Central Government. The circular letter was an attempt to transfer Judges from one High Court to another by circumventing the decision of the Sankalchand Sheth’s case. The word “obtain” conveyed a sense of compelled obedience, failure of which would give an adverse consequences. The circular letter had a concealed threat that if an additional judge did not give his affirmative consent to be appointed as a Judge of the High Court of another then they may not be appointed as permanent judge and may be sacked after the expiry of their term. And that the Supreme Court should issue a writ of mandamus to the Union of India directing to re-fix the strength of Judges in accordance with the arrears of cases.Īrticle 124(2) does not impose mandatory obligation upon the Central Government with regard to taking consultation with the Judges of the Supreme Court or the High Court.
The President of India failed to appoint Judges under Article 216 for the purpose of disposing of the pending case. Whether non-extension of the Additional Judge Mr. Whether the independence of judiciary was affected by the circular letter of the law minister. Who has the final voice in the appointment of the Judges? Whether the Petitioner had locus standi the matter despite the fact that their legal rights were not injured by the circular letter. The other dealt with constitutional validity of orders of transfer of chief Justice M.M. One dealt with the constitutional validity of the circular letter. The petitioner contended that the letter was a direct attack on the Independence of the judiciary and therefore he challenged the constitutional validity of the letter. The petitioner challenged the circular letter addressed by the Law Minister of the Government of India to the Chief Minister of each States except North-east States, stating that they should obtain consent from the Additional Judges working in High Court to be appointed as permanent judge in the High Court of other States. Bench: A Gupta, D Desai, E Venkataramiah, P Bhagawati, R Pathak, S M Tulzapurkar
0 kommentar(er)
