Can Centre Reject CJI's Recommendation For Court Allowance To SC Staff? Plea In Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on the plea raising the question whether, once the Chief Justice of India has decided to grant a 'Court Allowance' to the employees of the Apex Court, and sought the approval of the President under Article 146(2) of the Constitution for the same, can the Ministry of Law and Justice arbitrarily refuse approval, without assigning any reasons or referring it to the President.The bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and Surya Kant was hearing a writ petition by the Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association impugning the communication dated 25.09.2020 issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice, inter alia on the ground that the Ministry of Law and Justice could not have arbitrarily refused the recommendations of the Chief Justice of India.The bench recorded that Mr. K. Parameshwara, counsel for the petitioner, submits that: 1. the proposal for the payment of a court allowance to the members of the staff of the Supreme Court of India was based on the report of a three-judge committee appointed by the CJI; 2. the impugned communication dated 25 September 2020 of the Department of Justice merely states that the matter has been considered in consultation with the Department of Expenditure and the proposal for granting a court allowance for the officers and staff of the Supreme Court at par with Parliamentary allowance of the officers and staff of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Secretariat has not been acceded to; 3.The decision of the Constitution bench in Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India [1989 4 SCC] specifically holds that in view of the provisions of Article 146(2) of the Constitution, the issue is a matter which involves a dialogue between the highest constitutional functionaries; 4. the manner in which the proposal has been dealt with would not be consistent with the principles which have been enunciated by the Constitution bench."Issue notice. Liberty to serve the first (Department of Justice) and second (Department of Expenditure) respondents through the central agency. Service on the Secretary General of the Supreme Court of India may be effected dasti. The notice to be returnable on ... (in 6 weeks). The counter affidavit if any may be filed in the meantime. We request the learned SG to assist the court", ordered the bench.The plea urges that the impugned communication ought to be set aside because:a. The Proviso to Article 146(2) of the Constitution does not empower the Ministry of Law and Justice to reject the approval without as much as putting up the proposal before the President of India. In fact, declining approval would require the President of India and the Chief Justice of India to "exchange thoughts" on the issue before declining approval. This Court in Supreme Court Employees Welfare Assn. v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 187 held,"57. ... It is equally true that when such rules have been framed by a very high dignitary of the State, it should be looked upon with respect and unless there is very good reason not to grant approval, the approval should always be granted. If the President of India is of the view that the approval cannot be granted, he cannot straightway refuse to grant such approval, but before doing so, there must be exchange of thoughts between the President of India and the Chief Justice of India."In a similar case, this Hon'ble Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chandra Mundra (2019) SCC Online 1670 held,"10. We however find that the matter has not been properly processed by the State Government. In the first instance, the government did not even forward the decision of the Chief Justice for approval to the Governor of the State. They were indeed bound to do so. They merely returned the proposal to the High Court as "not acceptable". No reasons were given by the Governor."b. The constitutional scheme of separation of powers requires that the judiciary has financial freedom in respect of its own employees. This would ensure and invigorate the essence of the independence of the judiciary. In State of Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chandra Mundra (2019) SCC Online 1670, this Hon'ble Court held,"20. That independence of Judiciary is part of the basic structure of the Constitution is now well entrenched. The Constitution has insulated the Judiciary from outside influences both by the Executive and legislature. Article 223 to 234 in Chapter VI in part VI of the Constitution dealing with the Courts below the High Courts also show that the Constitution makers were equally keen to insulate even Subordinate Judiciary. Independence of Judiciary takes within its sweep independence of the individual Judges in relation to their appointments, tenure, payment of salaries and also non-removal except by way of impeachment. An integral part of 'Independence of Judiciary', as a constitutional value is the 'Institutional Independence' i.e. the aspect concerning the financial freedom or autonomy which the judiciary must possess and enjoy....

Can Centre Reject CJI's Recommendation For Court Allowance To SC Staff? Plea In Supreme Court

Mehal Jain

Tags