9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Primacy of the Chief Justice of India in judicial appointments. 2. Justiciability of the fixation of judge strength. 3. Interpretation of constitutional provisions. 4. Independence of the judiciary. 5. Constitutional conventions. 6. Role of the Chief Justice of India in consultation. 7. Criteria for appointment of the Chief Justice of India. 8. Other issues: appointment to the Supreme Court, transfer of judges, and fixation of judge strength. Summary: 1. Primacy of the Chief Justice of India in Judicial Appointments: The court examined whether the Chief Justice of India (CJI) should have primacy in judicial appointments. The court concluded that the CJI's opinion, formed in consultation with senior judges, should be given greater weight but not absolute primacy. The CJI acts as the head of the judiciary and represents the collective opinion of the judiciary. The executive cannot override the CJI's opinion without compelling reasons. 2. Justiciability of the Fixation of Judge Strength: The court held that the issue of judge strength is justiciable to the extent that a mandamus can be issued to compel the executive to perform its constitutional duty. However, the court cannot fix the actual judge strength itself. The Chief Justice of a State, with the concurrence of the CJI, can propose an increase in judge strength, which should be accepted by the executive without delay. 3. Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions: The court emphasized that constitutional provisions must be interpreted in a manner that advances the underlying policy and purpose. The interpretation should be broad and capable of growth to meet new social, political, and historical realities. The court rejected the narrow interpretation given in S.P. Gupta's case, which gave primacy to the executive in judicial appointments. 4. Independence of the Judiciary: The court reiterated that the independence of the judiciary is a basic feature of the Constitution. This independence is not limited to the security of tenure of individual judges but extends to the judiciary as an institution. The appointment process should ensure that the judiciary remains independent from the executive. 5. Constitutional Conventions: The court recognized the existence of constitutional conventions, which are unwritten rules that regulate the exercise of discretionary powers. It held that an established convention exists that the opinion of the judiciary, expressed through the CJI, is binding on the executive in judicial appointments. This convention is part of the constitutional law and enforceable. 6. Role of the Chief Justice of India in Consultation: The court held that the CJI does not act as an individual but as the head of the judiciary. The CJI must consult senior judges before forming an opinion on judicial appointments. The collective opinion of the judiciary, represented by the CJI, should be given primacy in the appointment process. 7. Criteria for Appointment of the Chief Justice of India: The court held that the appointment of the CJI should be based on merit and not merely on seniority. The CJI has significant responsibilities and should be selected based on objective standards. 8. Other Issues: a) Appointments to the Supreme Court: The court held that appointments should be based on merit, with due consideration given to seniority and legitimate expectations. b) Transfers (Article 222): The court held that transfers of judges should be made in public interest and on the recommendation of the CJI. The executive should not have a significant role in the transfer process. c) Fixation of Judge Strength: The court reiterated that the proposal for increasing judge strength, if concurred by the CJI, should be accepted by the executive without delay. Conclusion: The court overruled the majority view in S.P. Gupta's case, holding that the judiciary, represented by the CJI, has primacy in judicial appointments. The executive cannot override the judiciary's opinion without compelling reasons. The fixation of judge strength is justiciable to the extent that the court can compel the executive to perform its duty. The appointment of the CJI should be based on merit, and the transfer of judges should be made on the recommendation of the CJI in public interest.
|
