Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1986 (11) TMI SC This
Issues Involved:
1. Review of Cabinet Decisions 2. Issuance of Writ of Mandamus 3. Consultation between State Government and High Court Summary: 1. Review of Cabinet Decisions: The Supreme Court addressed whether the Kerala High Court was justified in holding that the Council of Ministers could not review their earlier decision and decide not to make appointments contrary to the initial decision. The High Court had quashed the Cabinet decisions of January 30, 1985, and February 28, 1985. The Supreme Court held that the Council of Ministers was competent to reconsider and review its decisions, as the initial decision was only tentative until it was translated into action by an order expressed in the name of the Governor as required by Art. 166(1). 2. Issuance of Writ of Mandamus: The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court could issue a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to appoint respondents Nos. 1 and 3-6 as District Judges under Art. 233(1) of the Constitution. The High Court had issued such a writ, but the Supreme Court found this to be constitutionally impermissible. The Court emphasized that the Governor must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers under Art. 163(1) and not on the advice of the High Court. The issuance of a writ of mandamus in this context was deemed an overreach of judicial authority. 3. Consultation between State Government and High Court: The Supreme Court examined whether there was real, full, and effective consultation between the State Government and the High Court as required by Art. 233(1) before the decision to reject the panel forwarded by the High Court. The Court reiterated that consultation must be meaningful and not a mere formality. The State Government should have conveyed its views to the High Court to elicit its opinion before arriving at a decision. The Supreme Court directed that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued to the State Government requiring it to communicate its views to the High Court within six weeks and, if necessary, make a fresh effort to find suitable candidates from the communities or groups passed over before taking a final decision. Conclusion: The appeals were allowed, and the judgment and order of the High Court directing the issuance of a writ of mandamus were set aside. The Supreme Court directed the State Government to communicate its views to the High Court and, if necessary, make a fresh effort to find suitable candidates before making a final decision. The decision of the State Government not to make appointments from the panel forwarded by the High Court and to renotify the vacancies was quashed. The High Court was also directed to comply with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in related cases.
|