KUMAR PADMA PRASAD versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 109 · Decided: 10-03-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Case Allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-( 
KUMAR PADMA PRASAD 
A 
v. 
' UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MARCH 10, 1992 
[KULDIP SINGH, P.B. SAWANT AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Articles 50, 136, 139A, 217 (2 ), 233, 236(b ), 237-High Court 
Judge-Appointment-Necessary qualifications-Whether 
Supreme · 
Court/High Court can exercise jurisdiction on the ground that the incumbent C 
does not fulfil qualifications as required by Article 217. 
'Judicial Office'-Concept of-Explained. 
Government of Mizoram Notification CS/MZ/APPT/79 dated 
n.6.1979-Assistant to Deputy Commissioner appointed under Rules 8, 9 D 
and 15 of 1937-R.ules for regulation of procedure of officers to administer 
justice in Lushai Hills, 1937-R.s. 8, 915-Assistant to Dy. Commissioner-Ex-
ercising powers analogous to those of a Judicial Magistrate First Class under 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Whether holds a judicial office. 
Independence of judiciary-Necessity for. 
Administration of justice-Whether High Court can assume jurisdiction 
on judicial side to probe into matter purely of administrative nature and 
exclusively within purview of Chief Justice. 
Words and Phrases 
''Judicial Office'~ ''Judicial service"-fnterpretation of 
The Governor of Mizoram, by a letter dated 5.5.1990, addressed to 
E 
F 
the Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court, recommended the name of 
respondent no. 9 for appointment as a Judge of the High Court. The G 
bio-data enclosed with the said letter indicated that respondent no. 9, 
after passing L L.B., joined the Government of Assam in Law Department 
in 1966 as a Gazetted Officer. He worked on various posts, under the 
Government of Mizoram and Assam, such as, Law Officer in Finance 
.:;,:.,,artment, Under Secretary, Law and Judicial, Registrar Firms, Deputy H 
109 
110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Secretary Law & Judicial and Deputy Legal Remembrancer. In 1985 he 
was appointed as Legal Remembrancer and Secretary Law and Judicial. 
He worked as D.C. (Judicial) in 1987. He also worked as Member/Presid-
ing Officer/Chairman of certain Tribunals/Committees. The bio data 
described him as belonging to Mizoraw Judicial Service. The Chief Justice 
B forwarded the papers to the Minister of Law and Justice Government of 
India. The Union Law Minister, the Chief Justice of India, the Prime 
Minister of India and the President of India on their respective turns 
cleared/approved the name of respondent no. 9 for the appointment. The 
warrant of appointment was signed by the President of India on 15.10.1991 
and the Notification appointing respondent no. 9 as a Judge of Gauhati 
C High Court was issued on 25.10.1991. 
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court 
on October 23, 1991 challenging the selection of respondent no. 9 for 
appointment as a Judge of the Gauhati High Court on the ground that he 
D was not qualified for such an appointment. The High Court passed an 
interim order holding that it was doubtful if respondent no. 9 possessed 
qualifications as provided under Article 217(2), and directed· that the 
warrant of appointment of respondent No. 9 issued by the President of 
India should not be given effect to. Responde~t No. 9 was also restrained 
from subscribing his oath or affirmation in terms of Article 219 of the 
E · Constitution. 
Before the writ petition was filed by the petitioner, the Mizoram 
Bench of Gauhati High Court suo-motu assumed jurisdiction under Ar-
ticle 226 of the Constitution and by its order dated 20.11.1990 directed to 
>-· 
F 
register a case against respondent no.9 in respect of anomalies in purchase 
of law books for the High Court. The Chief Minister, Mizoram by letter 
dated 7.10.1991 conveyed to the Union Law Minister that a vigilance case 
J 
was instituted against respondent no.9. The lettel_" dated 8.10.1991 ad-
dressed by Chief Justice, Gauhati High Court to the Union Law Minister 
did not indicate about any such case. The Law Minister ignored the letter 
G of the Chief Minister. Later on the State Government by a wireless message 
dated 2.11.1991 informed the Department of Justice, Government of India 
that respondent no.9 had been placed under suspension in view of the case 
pending against him in the High Court. -
~ 
H 
Respondent No.9 tiled a special leave petition and a writ petition 
PADMAPRASAD v. U.0.1. 
111 
before this Court. Two transfer petitions, one by respondent no.9 and the A 
other by the petitioner, were also ftled seeking transfer to this Cou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.