LexM. MANOHAR REDDY & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 711 M. MANOHAR REDDY & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Writ Petiton (Civil) No. 174 of 2012) FEBRUARY 4, 2013 [AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: A B Art. 32 read with Art. 217 - Petition for a writ of quo c warranto seeking to quash appointment of Judge of High Court - Consultation process leading to appointment alleged to have been vitiated for failure of consideration of a criminal case pending against the incumbent - Held: 'Eligibility' of the incumbent is not in issue - As regards 'lack of effective D consultation', a fact that is unknown to anyone cannot be ·said to be not taken into consideration and the consultative process cannot be faulted as incomplete for that reason - At the time the incumbent was being considered for appointment as a judge of High Court, he was unaware of any case being E pending in which he was named as an accused -It is not a case of suppression of any material fact by the incumbent or at his behest - From the record, it is evident that none of the members of High Court or Supreme Court Co/legia was aware of the fact - State Government and Central Government were equally unaware of the fact - No case is made out for F issuing a writ of quo warranto quashing the appointment of respondent No. 3 as the judge of High Court. Public Interest Litigation: Writ petition filed in 2012 seeking to quash appointment of a Judge of High Court made in 2000 - Held: Writ petition is based on incorrect facts - It is not a sincere and honest endeavour to correct something which the petitioners truly G 711 H 712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 1 S.C.R. A perceive to be wrong but the real intent of this petition is to malign respondent No.3 - Writ petition is not only without merit but also wanting in bona fides. Respondent no. 3 was appointed as Judge of the 8 High Court as per Notification dated 19.6.2000 and he took oath on 27.6.2000. Two advocates of the said High Court filed the instant writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of quo warranto quashing the appointment of respondent no. 3 as a Judge of the High Court and a writ of mandamus commanding the State Bar Council to C cancel his enrolment as an advocate. It was stated that the consultation process leading to appointment of respondent no. 3 was vitiated as both the High Court and the Supreme Court Collegia as well as the Central Government failed to consider that at the time of such D appointment a criminal trial was pending in which respondent no. 3 was an accused and a proclaimed offender and even at the time of his enrolment as an advocate he had concealed the factum of criminal proceedings in his application for enrolment. The E Attorney General submitted that the writ petition was not maintainable and the same was only a camouflage as the petitioners aimed at removal of the Judge who had been in office for over 12 years, which would be violative of the Constitutional scheme. F Dismissing the writ petition, the Court HELD: 1.1. In Mahesh Chandra Gupta, this Court brought out the distinction between "eligibility" and "suitability" and pointed out that eligibility was based on G objective facts and it was, therefore, liable to judicial review. But, suitability pertained to the realm of opinion and was, therefore, not amenable to any judicial review. The Court concluded that judicial review may be called for on two grounds, namely, (i) "lack of eligibility" and (ii) H M. MANOHAR REDDY v. UNION OF INDIA 713 "lack of effective consultation". In the case in hand A admittedly, the eligibility of respondent No.3 is not an issue. [para 13 and 15] [724-B, E-F; 726-F] Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India 2009 (10) SCR 921= 2009 (8) SCC 273 - referred to. B 1.2. As regards the 'lack of effective consultation', owing to pendency of the criminal case against respondent no. 3, the case related to an incident alleged to have taken place at 8.30 P.M. on 13.2;1981 during an agitation by a large number of University students, in C which a State Road Transport bus was damaged. Respondent no. 3 was a student of the said University at the relevant time. An FIR was lodged against unknown persans and the accused were described as "University Students". Subsequently, five student leaders were D identified and respondent no. 3 figured among them at sl. No. 4. Case of accused-1 resulted in acquittal. Accused 2 to 5 w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.