Supreme Court falls back upon the infallibility of the highest institution
Surprisingly the administrative side of the Allahabad High Court instead of providing such information preferred to file the SLP in the Supreme Court. The Bench presided over by the Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan shockingly not only admitted the appeal but also state the further proceeding in the said case pending before the High Court for which the Hon’ble Supreme Court was having no power to do so as no substantial question of general importance was involved nor it could have been taken out from such a innocuous order. Was it a case in which by any stretch of imagination the Supreme Court could issue notice and that too by the Bench presided over by the C.J.I. (who headed the collegiums which recommended the name of Dr. Satish Chandra). Then the case was transferred to the bench presided over by S.H. Kapadia Senior Judge and the member of the collegiums recommending the name of Dr. Satish Chandra himself. A petition was filed seeking the transfer of the proceedings from Allahabad High Court to Supreme Court under Article 139-A of the Constitution of India. It is another shocking surprise that the S.C. allowed the transfer petition and withdraw the writ petition from the High Court to itself. The petitioner Mahesh Chandra Gupta was summoned to conduct the argument. It was premeditated and predestine of the matter that the fate of the case was predetermined and the writ petition was going to be dismissed. However the arguments were conducted by expression “that qualification prescribed for a post is a rational differentia as promulgated by the equality clause enshrined under Article 14 and such qualification as prescribed under Article 217(2)(b) of the Constitution of India having the eligibility criteria for the selection of some advocate to the Constitutional Post of the Judge of the High Court may not be diluted by saying that the judiciary has not the infallibility to prescribed its own stander over the clause provided therein “An Advocate of the High Court”. It is always taken in the matter of the selection from the time of the Britishers that only such person having competency and high integrity in the professional ethics were regarded to be selected an being alleviated as the Judge of the High Court. Dr. Satish Chandr enrolled as an Advocate on 13.07.1975 has never practice. The present Chief Justice of India H.S. Kapadi observed that the requisite constitutional requirement is not actual practice as an Advocate. He introduced the right of practice may also include such Advocate who have actually not practiced. In paragraph 23 of his Judgment it has been held that “actual practice cannot be read into the qualification provision, Article 217(2)(b). The legal implication of the 1961 Act is that any person whose name is enrolled on the State Bar Council would be regarded as ‘an advocate of the High Court. The substance of Article 217(2)(b) is that it prescribes an eligibility criteria based on ‘right to practice’ and not ‘actual practice’
In concluding part of the Judgment the Supreme Court falls back upon the infallibility of the highest institution i.e. the collegium. It is left to the posterity to pose some uncomfortable questions to the Supreme Court. In a country where Judges appoint themselves can faith in the institutional infallibility be a rule of law? Is the Supreme Court qua the appointment of judges a law unto itself and what about the transparency and accountability? On merit lead to horrendous results if actual practice at the bar is equated with mere enrolment.
The rationale of M.C. Gupta boils down to this: A citizen cannot challenge the appointment of Judge on any ground whatsoever even if he has a bad reputation or even if he has obtained recommendation of collegium by practicing fraud. The judges of High Courts should not have the courage to entertain a writ of Quo Warranto petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India against a judge of high court and if they do so the same would be treated by the members of the collegium of the Supreme Court to be a writ petition questioning their authority and the petition would be transferred to the Supreme Court against all constitutional norms and would be heard by Bench presided by CJI or a senior member of the collegium. For eligibility mere enrolment as an advocate is enough- actual practice at the Bar is not required ‘Suitability’ cannot be questioned because it is in the exclusive domain of the My Lords of the Supreme Court. The citizen has to trust the institutional infallibility of the Supreme Court.
You need to be a member of Whether_JUDGES_COMMITMENT_POLITICAL_PATRIONAGE to add comments!