Judicial Powers And Duties Of Permanent Judges And Additional Judges Are Same: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that in so far as judicial powers and duties are concerned, there is no distinction between the judges appointed under Article 217 and additional judges appointed under Article 224 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted that the only difference between the two is with respect to their tenure. “The Hon’ble Chief Justice is the master of the roster...
The Allahabad High Court has held that in so far as judicial powers and duties are concerned, there is no distinction between the judges appointed under Article 217 and additional judges appointed under Article 224 of the Constitution of India.
The Court noted that the only difference between the two is with respect to their tenure.
“The Hon’ble Chief Justice is the master of the roster and he alone has the authority to assign different cases or category of cases to different Judges. All the Judges are duty bound to perform the judicial work allotted to them and to exercise their jurisdiction accordingly, irrespective of the Constitutional provision under which they have been appointed” observed a bench comprising of Justices Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Subhash Vidyarthi.
The bench was hearing a Review application which raised two interesting grounds:
- Judgment was not pronounced as per procedure prescribed in Chapter VII, Rule 1 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
- The Special Appeal was heard by a Division Bench, consisting of two Judges, one of whom was appointed under Article 217 of the Constitution of India, whereas the other Judge was appointed under Article 224 and formation of such Bench was against the spirit of the Constitution of India.
The Court referred to Chapter VII, Rule 1 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (Pronouncing of Judgment) while observing that sometimes due to paucity of time and in interest of justice to other litigants, gist as well as the outcome of a judgment are dictated in open court while the detailed judgment is dictated in chambers. Same was done in the present case. A judgment will not become unsustainable merely because the entire judgment is not pronounced in open court, it held.
Further the Court held,
“The aforesaid Rule provides that after a case has been heard, the judgment may be pronounced either at once, or on some future date, of which notice shall be given to the Advocates of the parties. It further provides that notification in the cause-list shall be deemed to be ‘sufficient notice’. After a case has been heard, the judgment may be pronounced either at once, or on some future date. This Rule is a Rule of Procedure and it does not confer any substantive right on any party. The Rule does not provide any adverse consequence of the entire judgment not being pronounced in open Court immediately. In our considered view, the aforesaid Procedural Rule is merely directory in nature.”
With respect to constitution of the bench hearing the Special Appeal, the Court said the only difference that Article 224 and Article 217 create is in the tenure of the judges by providing that an additional or acting Judge under Article 224 holds office as per provision contained therein and other Judges shall hold office till the age of 62 years. Further, the oath administered to judges while taking charge of their office is same irrespective of the provision under which they have been appointed.
Thus it held that Judges appointed under Article 224 of the Constitution of India are also under oath to duly and faithfully and to the best of their ability, knowledge and judgment, perform the duties of their office without fear of favour, affection or ill-will like a Judge appointed under Article 217.
Accordingly, the review application was dismissed.
Case Title: Mata Prasad Tiwari v. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue [Civil Misc. Review Application No. 24 of 2023]
Date: 10.07.2023
Counsel For Applicant: Rama Kant Dixit, Asok Pande