SC Dismisses TN Judicial Officers' Petition Challenging Non-Consideration Of Their Names For Elevation As Madras HC Judges

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a writ petition filed by eight judicial officers who alleged that the Madras High Court collegium ignored their names and instead recommended their "juniors" for elevation as judges of the High Court.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India, S A Bobde, and Justices AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian held that the petitioners' claims were not sustainable.The petitioners include Madras High Court's Registrar (Vigilance) R. Poornima, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority (TNSLSA) Member Secretary K. Rajasekar and the Principal Judge of the Family Courts in Chennai A.K.A. Rahmaan, Principal District Judges R. Sakthivel, A. Kanthakumar, A. Nazeema Banu, M.D. Sumathi and M. Suresh Viswanath. They contended that a majority of them had completed 10 years of practice as lawyers before being recruited as District Judges on February 18, 2011. In 2017, they had also completed six years of service in the district judiciary. However, when it came to elevation as High Court judges, the collegium did not consider them. The decision of the High Court collegium in not considering the petitioners for being appointed as judges of the High Court is based on an incorrect interpretation of Article 217(2) of the Constitution and it is violative of Article 217 itself resulting in arbitrariness and it thereby violative of Article 14, the petitioners had contended in the writ petition.The CJI led bench had, in December 2019, Issued notice restricted to the question of the entitlement of the petitioners to be considered for High Court judgeship by virtue of having put in 18 years.The bench comprising of the Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian had finally heard the writ petition on Monday and reserved it for judgment. The Supreme Court has observed that serving Judicial Officers cannot invoke Explanation (a) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India to club with their judicial service, the experience that they had at the Bar before joining judicial service, to claim eligibility for considering them for elevation as High Court judges.The bench comprising the Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna V. Ramasubramanian observed that such a benefit of clubbing can be allowed only to a person who held a judicial office and later became an advocate(R Poornima and others vs Union of India and others).Article 217Article 217 (2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court unless he is a citizen of India and —(a) has for at least ten years held a judicial office in the territory of India; or(b) has for at least ten years been an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession.Explanation (a) to this provision states that in computing the period during which a person has held judicial office in the territory of India, there shall be included any period, after he has held any judicial office, during which the person has been an advocate of a High Court or has held the office of a member of a tribunal or any post, under the Union or a State, requiring special knowledge of law.Explanation (aa) provides that in computing the period during which a person has been an advocate of a High Court, there shall be included any period during which the person [has held judicial office or the office of a member of a tribunal or any post, under the Union or a State, requiring special knowledge of law] after he became an advocate.ContentionThe contention raised by the petitioners was that these provisions are to be interpreted in such a way as to club with their judicial service, the experience that they had at the Bar before joining judicial service. According to them, to interpret Explanation (a) in such a manner that only a person who resigned from Judicial service and became an Advocate will be eligible to club both the periods, will result in unfair and hostile discrimination of Judicial Officers, offending Article 14 and hence such an interpretation has to be avoided.Such other period should have followed and not preceded the judicial serviceThe bench, referring to these provisions observed that though according to Explanation (a), the period of service rendered by a person in a judicial office has to be computed by taking into account the period during which he has been an advocate of a high court, such other period should have followed and not preceded the judicial service. The court said:A person may acquire the eligibility as indicated in Article 217(2) (i) either exclusively from the Bar [as provided in clause (b)] (ii) or exclusively from the judicial service [as provided in clause (a)] (iii) or from a cocktail of both [as provided in Explanation (a) and (aa)].Referring to dictionary meanings, the bench further said:Explanation (a) confers the benefit of clubbing to a limited extent, to a person who has held a Judicial Office. To be eligible for the limited benefit so conferred, a person should have been an Advocate "after...

SC Dismisses TN Judicial Officers' Petition Challenging Non-Consideration Of Their Names For Elevation As Madras HC Judges

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

SC Dismisses TN Judicial Officers' Petition Challenging Non-Consideration Of Their Names For Elevation As Madras HC Judges

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers