1974 (2) TMI 87 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the appointment of Justice A. N. Ray as Chief Justice of India.
2. Jurisdiction and maintainability of the writ petitions.
3. Application of the principle of futility in issuing a writ of quo warranto.
4. Relevance of the motives of the appointing authority in quo warranto proceedings.
5. Potential consequences of issuing a writ of quo warranto.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the appointment of Justice A. N. Ray as Chief Justice of India:
The petitioners challenged the appointment of Justice A. N. Ray as Chief Justice of India, alleging it violated Article 124(2) of the Constitution, which they argued mandated consultation and adherence to the rule of seniority. They claimed the appointment was politically motivated and malafide, undermining the independence of the judiciary. The respondents countered that the appointment was valid, made by the President under Article 124(2), and justified by the need for a Chief Justice who was not only experienced and able but also a competent administrator.

2. Jurisdiction and maintainability of the writ petitions:
The respondents raised preliminary objections to the jurisdiction and maintainability of the writ petitions, arguing that a writ of quo warranto is discretionary and should not be issued if it would be futile or if there is an alternative remedy. They contended that the writ petitions were an abuse of the court's process, as the alleged irregularities could be cured by the immediate re-appointment of Justice A. N. Ray.

3. Application of the principle of futility in issuing a writ of quo warranto:
The court examined whether issuing a writ of quo warranto would be futile, given that Justice A. N. Ray, after the resignation of the three senior judges, became the senior-most puisne judge and could be re-appointed as Chief Justice of India. The court concluded that even if the appointment was set aside, Justice A. N. Ray would be entitled to re-appointment, rendering the writ futile. The court emphasized that the principle of futility applies if the alleged usurper could be immediately re-appointed, and there is no legal impediment to such re-appointment.

4. Relevance of the motives of the appointing authority in quo warranto proceedings:
The court held that the motives of the appointing authority are irrelevant in quo warranto proceedings. The focus should be on whether the appointee holds the office without legal authority, not on the appointing authority's motives. The court reasoned that requiring the alleged usurper to prove the bona fides of the appointing authority would place them at a disadvantage and could lead to manipulation by the appointing authority.

5. Potential consequences of issuing a writ of quo warranto:
The respondents argued that issuing a writ of quo warranto would have disastrous consequences, rendering null and void the decisions and appointments made by Justice A. N. Ray as Chief Justice of India. The court did not express an opinion on this issue, as it was unnecessary for the disposal of the petitions.

Conclusion:
1. The motives of the appointing authority in appointing Justice A. N. Ray as Chief Justice of India are irrelevant in quo warranto proceedings.
2. Issuing a writ of quo warranto would be futile, as Justice A. N. Ray would be entitled to immediate re-appointment based on the rule of seniority.
3. Even if the consultation under Article 124(2) is mandatory, the writ would be futile as Justice A. N. Ray could be re-appointed after fulfilling the consultation requirement.

The writ petitions were dismissed, with no orders as to costs.