K. ASHOK REDDY ETC. versus THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 662 · Decided: 07-02-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, J.S. VERMA, S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
K. ASHOK REDDY ETC. 
,...I... 
v. 
THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 7, 1994 
B 
[KULDIP SINGH, J.S. VERMA AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 222( 1}-Transfer of Judges and 
>-
Chief Justice of High Court-Transfer by President in consultation with Chief 
Justice of India-Likelihood of bias and arbitrariness-Held: Apprehensions 
c unfounded-Transfers necessary for promoting better administration of Justice 
throughout the country-ln-built checks in the exercise of power to trans-
fer-Peer committee of two senior Judges of Supreme Court and two Chief 
Justices of High Court Constitution of-Sufficient saf eguard-£/ements of ar-
bitrariness and bias thus eliminated. 
D 
Articles 32, 136 and 226: Locus standi-Transfe"ed Judge alone can 
challenge the trans/ er-Judicial Review-Area of justiciability limited-Non-
availablility of Judicial Review on grounds of arbitrariness and bias-Do not 
amount to violation of basic feature of the Constitution. 
E 
Administrative Law: Judicial Review-Reviewability of discretionary 
power-Transfer of Judges-Collective exercise of highest Con$titutional 
functionaries on objective criterion-In-built check in itself against arbitrari-
ness and bias. 
~· 
The appellant, filed a writ petition before the High Court praying for 
F 
a declaration that Judges of the High Courts were not liable to be trans-
{erred. He contended that the transfers were likely to be influenced by 
extraneous considerations leading to arbitrariness resulting in erosion of 
the independence of judiciary; that the decision by the nine-Judge Bench 
in the Judges' Case-II, excluded the power of judicial review and was, 
G therefore, in conflict with the dedsion of a larger Bench in Kesavananda 
Bharati. The High Court held thdt such misapprehensions resulted from 
a misreading of the decision of the nine-Judge Bench in the Judges' Case-II 
+ 
and dismissed the writ petition. 
A writ petition raising similar questions was filed before another 
H High Court and the same was withdrawn from that High Court and 
662 
K. A REDDY v. GOVf. OF INDIA 
663 
transferred to this Court. 
The appellant submitted that Article 222 of the Constitution of India 
was in substance a dead letter since the power thereunder was incapable 
of exercise in the absence of guidelines provided in the Constitution itself; 
that judicial review was a basic feature of the Constitution as held in 
Kesavananda Bharti by a larger Bench and, therefore, the holding by the 
nine-Judge Bench in the Judges' Case-II excluding judicial review in the 
matter of transfers was not good law; and that there was likely to be 
arbitrariness in the transfer of High Court Judges and the.Judges' Case-II 
should be clarified to prevent any arbitrariness. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that such misap-
prehensions were unfounded since the Judges' Case-II had dealt with these 
aspects and also indicated the guidelines to exclude any arbitrariness in 
A 
B 
c 
the transfer of Judges; that the Judges' Case-II was not in conflict with the 
decision in Kesavananda Bharati inasmuch as it did not exclude judicial 
review but merely emphasised the limited area thereof in view of the nature D 
of that exercise, the discretion being vested in the highest constitutional 
functionaries. 
On behalf of the Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability it was 
contended that some more guidelines for effectuating the transfer policy E 
could be indicated to ensure uniformity in its working. 
Dismissing the appeal as well as the Transferred case, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The exercise of power of transfer under Article 222 of the 
Constitution is to subserve a public purpose and to promote public F 
interest for better administration of justice throughout the country, which 
is the inherent guideline implicit in Article 222 as held in the Judges' 
Case-II. The expression 'public interest' has a legal connotation well known 
and properly understood and so also the requirement of promoting better 
administration of justice throughout the country, and refers to the inter-
G 
ests of public administration. (676-H; 677-A] 
1.2. The guideline of public interest, i.e., for promoting better· ad-
ministration of justice throughout the country, is sufficient guideline for 
proper exercise of the power and to ensure exclusion of the possibility of 
any arbitrariness in the exercise of power of transfer under Article 222 in H 
664 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19

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