1990 (10) TMI 376 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petitions.
2. Constitutional obligation to fill judicial vacancies.
3. Judicial independence and the role of the judiciary.
4. Process and delay in judicial appointments.
5. Primacy of the Chief Justice of India in judicial appointments.
6. Justiciability of the fixation of Judge strength.

Summary:

1. Maintainability of the Petitions:
The Union of India argued that the petitions were not maintainable and that filling vacancies in the superior courts was not a justiciable matter. However, the Court overruled this objection by distinguishing between fixing the Judge strength and filling up vacancies based on sanctioned strength. The Court allowed the cases to proceed, emphasizing the obligation of the Union of India to maintain the sanctioned strength in the superior Courts.

2. Constitutional Obligation to Fill Judicial Vacancies:
The petitions sought a mandamus directing the Union of India to fill vacancies in the Supreme Court and High Courts. The Attorney General acknowledged the constitutional obligation of the Union to provide the sanctioned Judge strength and admitted that the default, if any, was a matter of public interest. The Court monitored the situation through interim directions, resulting in a reduction of vacancies, though some still remained.

3. Judicial Independence and the Role of the Judiciary:
The judgment emphasized the importance of judicial independence and an efficient judicial system for the sustenance of democracy. It highlighted the necessity of adequate Judge strength to ensure the judiciary is not overburdened, which is essential for the Rule of Law to prevail.

4. Process and Delay in Judicial Appointments:
The judgment criticized the traditional process of filling vacancies, which often led to delays. It suggested that steps for filling vacancies should be initiated six months in advance and completed promptly to avoid any gap in Judge strength. The Court noted that the process of consultation involving multiple constitutional functionaries should be streamlined to ensure timely appointments.

5. Primacy of the Chief Justice of India in Judicial Appointments:
The judgment questioned the majority view in S.P. Gupta's case, which did not recognize the primacy of the Chief Justice of India in the consultative process. The Court suggested that the role of the Chief Justice of India should be of crucial importance in the appointment process to ensure judicial independence and proper selection of Judges. The Court directed that this aspect be reconsidered by a larger bench.

6. Justiciability of the Fixation of Judge Strength:
The Court disagreed with the view in S.P. Gupta's case that the fixation of Judge strength is not justiciable. It suggested that the matter should be reviewed periodically to ensure that the sanctioned strength is pragmatic and commensurate with the existing need to prevent backlog and ensure efficient administration of justice.

Conclusion:
The petitions were disposed of with the assurance from the Attorney General that steps were being taken to fill the remaining vacancies. The Court directed that the matter of the Chief Justice of India's primacy and the justiciability of Judge strength fixation be referred to a larger bench for reconsideration. The judgment also highlighted the need for a National Judicial Commission to streamline the appointment process and ensure judicial independence.