• Welcome to itatonline.org Forum.
 

Judgment of supreme court on appointment of Judges of High court of Madras

Started by bpagrawal, March 06, 2014, 08:50:28 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

bpagrawal

Judgment of supreme court on appointment of Judges of High court of Madras

20. Thus, it is apparent that judicial review is permissible only on assessment of eligibility and not on suitability. It is not a case where the writ petitioners could not wait till the maturity of the cause i.e. of decision the collegium of this Court. They took a premature step by filing writ petitions seeking a direction to Union of India to return the list sent by the collegium of the Madras High Court without further waiting its consideration by the Supreme Court collegium. Even after the President of India accepts the recommendations and warrants of appointment are issued, the Court is competent to quash the warrant as has been done in this case of Shri Kumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 1213 wherein the recommendee was found not possessing eligibility for the elevation to the High Court as per Article 217(2). This case goes to show that that even when the President, has appointed a person to a constitutional office, the qualification of that person to hold that office can be examined in quo warranto proceedings and the appointment can be quashed. (See also: B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., AIR 2001 SC 3435).
21. In such a fact-situation, the writ petitioners or the members of the Bar could approach Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India; or the Hon'ble Law Minister, but instead of resorting to such a procedure, the writ petitioners had adopted an unwarranted short cut knowing it fully well that on the ground of the suitability, the writ petitions were not maintainable.REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOs. 892-893/2014
Registrar General, High Court of Madras
...Petitioner
Versus
R. Gandhi & Ors.
Dated;March 5, 2014.
http://www.lawweb.in/2014/03/judgment-of-supreme-court-on.html