Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › Shanti Bhushan vs. UOI (Supreme Court)

Shanti Bhushan vs. UOI (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 19, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

(1) A person who is not suitable to be appointed as a permanent Judge on the ground of unsuitability due to adverse factors on account of mental and physical capacity, adverse materials relating to character and integrity and other relevant matters, which are so paramount and sacrosanct for the functioning as a Judge, should not be continued as an Additional Judge. He should also not be given an extension.

(2) On facts, though all the members of the collegium including the then Chief Justice of India opposed the appointment of respondent No.2 (Justice Ashok Kumar) as a permanent Judge his term as additional judge was extended from time to time apparently at the behest of the Government. “the then Chief Justice should have stuck to the view expressed by the collegium and should not have been swayed by the views of the government to recommend extension of the term .. as it amounts to surrender of primacy by jugglery of words”. However, the belated challenge to the extensions “cannot put the clock back”.

(3) The concerned judge has been transferred to some other High Court in public interest (A. P. High Court) and if it comes to the notice of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India that action needs to be taken in respect of him for any aberration while functioning as a Judge, appropriate action as deemed proper shall be taken.

Related Judgements

  1. CCE vs. Punjab Fibres (Supreme Court) 

    In the context of s. 35 of the Excise Act, held (1) Where the statute confers on the authority concerned a limited power of condonation of delay or does not provide any such power, the authority has no power to condone delay beyond the prescribed period; Read more ›
  2. Sudarshan Silks vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    The Tribunal deleted penalty on the finding that the assessee had been induced to offer undisclosed income on the assurance that penalty would not be levied. The frame of the question raised by the department in its appeal to the High Court did not challenge the perversity of the…
  3. Janatha Textiles vs. TRO (Supreme Court) 

    It is an established principle of law that in a third party auction, the purchaser’s interest in the auctioned property continues to be protected notwithstanding that the underlying decree is subsequently set aside or otherwise.Read more ›
  4. Steel Authority vs. STO (Supreme Court) 

    Where the Appellate Commissioner disposed of the appeal by a non-reasoned order, held that a statutory appeal could not be disposed of in that manner. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless. Failure to give reasons…
  5. CIT vs. J. K. Charitable Trust (Supreme Court) 

    While merely because in some cases revenue has not preferred an appeal that does not operate as a bar for the revenue to prefer an appeal in another case where there is just cause for doing so or it is in public interest to do so or for a…