BRIJ MOHAN LAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 810 · Decided: 06-05-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
BRIJ MOHAN LAL 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MAY 6, 2002 
[S.P. BHARUCHA', CJ., K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Scheme of Establishment of Fast Track Courts: 
Challenge on the ground of lack of constitutional sanctions for 
employment of retired Judges-Held, there is nothing constitutionally improper 
in the Scheme-High Court has to play a pivotal role in its implementation 
in compliance with the constitutional requirements as per provisions of 
Chapter VI of the Constitution-Constitution of India; Articles 233, 234, 235 
D and 309. 
E 
F 
Challenge on the ground that no restriction placed on appointment of 
retired Judges with adverse service records-Held, The Judges need to have 
the strength and necessary facilities to put an end to injustice-Hence service 
rendered should be evaluated before appointment to Fast Track Courts. 
Challenge on the ground of non-availability of effective guidelines-
Detailed guidelines issued for appointment of Judges and functioning of Fast 
Track Courts for compliance by the State Governments and High Courts-
Status reports to be submitted periodically. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Control'-Meaning of in the context of Article 235 of the Constitution 
of India. 
The question in all these cases relates to the establishment and 
G functioning of Fast Track Courts. Finance Commission allocated funds to be 
utilized within 5 years and State Governments were to take necessary steps to 
establish such Courts for disposal of pending cases. Finance Commission had 
also suggested that States may consider re-employment of retired Judges for 
these Courts. The Scheme of Fast Track Courts was challenged in High Courts 
H on the ground that there was no constitutional sanction for employment of 
810 
--
.. 
B.N.KIRPAL
BRI.I MOHAN LAL v. U.0.1. 
811 
retired Judges, lack of infrastructural facilities and effective guidelines for A 
implementation of the Scheme and a plea was also made that instead of retired 
Officers eligible members of the Bar should be considered for appointment as 
Judges of these Courts. 
It was contended for the Union of India that there was no mandatory 
requirement for appointment of retired Sessions/Additional Sessions Judges 
or other Officers and ad-hoc promotions of Judicial Officers could also be 
considered; and that vacancies so created could be filled up by a special drive 
' 
for the smo~th functioning of the lower Courts. On behalfof other parties, it 
was contended that there might be chances of appointment of retired Judges 
particularly those with adverse service records. 
Disposing of the Petitions, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Plea taken by the parties questioning constitutional validity 
B 
c 
of the Fast Track Courts Scheme is clearly without any substance. In cases 
governed by Article 233(2), as a matter of rule, the High Court's D 
recommendation must be accepted. Departure from the opinion of the High 
,.. 
Court should be a rare event. The Constitution relies on the collective wisdom 
of the High Court as a body and not that of any single individual. Though the 
Fast Track Courts Scheme is envisaged by the Central Government on the 
basis of the views indicated by the Finance Commission, yet appointments to E 
the Fast Track Courts are to be made by the High Court keeping in view the 
modalities set out. Therefore, merely because the suggestion has stemmed from 
the Central Government it cannot be said that there has been any violation of 
any constitutional mandate. 1820-B-D-EJ 
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Ors. v. Union of F 
-
r India. 1199313 SCC 441, followed. 
1.2. The power of appointment under Article 234 does not include the 
power to confirm the promotion of judicial officers other than judicial officers 
which is vested exclusively in the High Court by Article 234. Any rule which 
provides that the authority belongs to the Governor in consultation with the G 
Higll Court, shall be void. While the promotion of District Judges shall be in 
the hands of the Governor acting in consultation with the High Court in terms 
of Article 235, the posting and promotion etc. of officers of the State Judicial 
Services other than the District Judges lie exclusively in the hands of the 
High Court. The word "control" referred to in Article 235 is used in a H 
812 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 3 S.C.R. 
A comprehensive sense to include general superintendence of the working of 
the Subordinate Courts. In other words the contro

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.