This case summary has been written by Ayushi Pragya from O.P Jindal Global University.
S.P. GUPTA VS UNION OF INDIA
FACTS
A circular letter dated 18th March 1981, written by Shri Shiv Shankar, the then Law Minister of the Government of India was sent to Chief Ministers of all States (excluding North-Eastern states). The letter articulated that one-third of the Judges of the High Court in a state should be from outside the State in which that High Court was situated. This would help in furthering national integration and combating issues bred by caste, kinship, and other local links and affiliations.
The letter instructed the Chief Justice of each High Court to obtain from all the Additional Judges working in the High Court of their State, their consent to be appointed as permanent Judges in any other High Court in the country. Multiple legal associations passed resolutions condemning the letter as subversive of judicial independence asking the Government to withdraw the circular letter. On the non-withdrawal of the letter, writ petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of the letter and seeking any consent of transfer submitted due to the letter as null and void.
The petitioners applied to the single judge who admitted the writ petition and issued a rule granting interim relief which restrained the Government (respondents) from further implementing the letter and acting upon the consent if any obtained. There were multiple other petitions filed with similar reasoning and hence were clubbed together under one writ petition. For example, another petition not only challenged the constitutional validity of the circular letter but also assailed the practice followed by the Government in appointing additional Judges in various High Courts.
The petitioner felt that these short-term appointments were unjustified under Article 224 and therefore claimed a writ of mandamus be issued directing the Central Government to convert the posts of additional Judges into permanent Judges in the various High Courts. Other petitions raised issues in regard to the scope and ambit of the power of the Government in the appointment or non-appointment of additional Judges.
ISSUE AND ANALYSIS
The Law Minister’s council challenged the locus standi of the petitioners. It was urged that the petitioners in that writ petition had not suffered any legal injury because of the circular by the Law Minister or the making of short-term appointments by the Government and they, therefore, had no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. However, the court held that if the State or a public authority causes an injury to the public interest and the public is not allowed to take up the case, then it would lead to chaos as the State can abuse its power.
The view has therefore been taken by the Courts in previous decisions that whenever there is a public wrong or public injury caused by any act or omission of the State or a public authority that is contrary to the Constitution or the law, any member of the public acting bona fide and having sufficient interest can maintain an action for redressal. Hence, in this case, the petitioners had locus standi to maintain their writ petitions.
The petitioners also sought a writ of mandamus against the government to re-fix the strength of judges in each High Court based on the number of pending cases and the rate at which judges dispose of cases in a year. The Supreme Court asserted that they do not have the jurisdiction to assign a fixed number of judges. It is an executive function entrusted under Article 216 to the President that is the Government of India. The court went on to say that appointing more judges merely on the basis of the rate of disposal of cases does not promise a fall in pending cases. There are chances where the law of diminishing returns (more people, less productivity) would occur. There is also no guarantee that an expert judge with a faster disposal rate would be appointed. The appointment of a mediocre judge would not significantly help. Moreover, even if the government does increase the number of judges in the high court, there will be a lack of courtrooms since the court buildings are usually congested and have very little space for further construction.
With regards to the appointment of judges, Article 124(2) states that the President is empowered to appoint judges of the Supreme Court. Article 217(1) further states that this power is exercisable only after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State, and the Chief Justice of the High Court. The Court held that there is no onus on the State to give priority to the Chief Justice of India’s opinion. The three officials only have a consultative role, and the final decision solely rests with the central government. As per Article 217(1), Additional Judges are also covered under the term ‘Every judge’.
An additional Judge cannot be robbed off from a further term or a permanent Judge seat on the ground that the Judge has not given consent for being appointed as a permanent judge in another High Court. No appointment can be done without going through the procedure set under Article 271(1). The word ‘consultation’ here refers to full and effective consultation. The petitioners next contended that the term ‘obtain’ in the circular letter and submitted that there was a threat (compelled obedience) that the failure of Judges to give consent to their appointment to other high courts would result in them not becoming Permanent Judge ever. The court rejected this argument and expressly said that ‘obtain’ did not mean coercion but only something that someone is willing to give.
The court also did not find any material in the argument of the petitioner contending that Judges giving consent factors as an irrelevant qualification for appointment. The Court also discussed the question related to the disclosure of the correspondence exchanged between the Law Minister, the Chief Justice of Delhi, and the Chief Justice of India regarding the non-appointment of O.N. Vohra and S.N. Kumar as additional Judges. If the reasons are not disclosed by the Government themselves, it would not possible to discover them which would make it impossible for the Court to decide whether the decision of the Government not to appoint an additional Judge for a further term is based on irrelevant grounds or not. Hence, the Court rejected the respondent’s contention that the unofficial document cannot be disclosed on the ground that for an effective democratic country, certain reasonable exposure of the document is necessary.
CONCLUSION
This case is one of the ‘Three Judges Cases’. It was in this case that the idea of a Judicial collegium system was brought up by Justice Bhagwati. The Supreme Court held that they did not find any Constitutional or legal infirmity or any abuse or misuse of authority on the part of the Law Minister in issuing the circular letter. The letter did not violate the provisions of Article 217(1) Article 222(1), nor did it offend any other constitutional or legal provision, and the challenge against the validity of the circular letter failed. This judgement was overruled by the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association vs Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 441, where it was held that in case of difference of opinion while consultations for appointment of a Judge, the Chief Justice of India had primacy.
Comments