REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS versus R. GANDHI & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 4 S.C.R. 77 · Decided: 05-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 4 S.C.R. 77 
REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS 
v. 
R. GANDHI & ORS. 
(Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 892-893/2014) 
(MARCH 5, 2014) 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. CHELAMESWAR AND 
M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] 
A 
B 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: Article 217 -
Appointment of High Court Judge - Writ petition seeking C 
direction to Union of India and Supreme Court Col/egiums to 
return the fist of 12 persons comprising of ten Advocates and 
two District Judges for consideration by the collegiums of 
Supreme Court for appointment as Judges of the Madras 
High Court on the ground of non-suitability - Maintainability D 
of - Held: The writ petitioners took a premature step by filfng 
writ petitions seeking a direction to Union of India to return the 
list sent by the col/egium of the Madras High Court without 
further waiting its consideration by the Supreme Court 
collegium - The fact-situation is that even after the President E 
of India accepts the recommendations and warrants of 
appointment are issued, the Court is competent to quash the 
warrant - In such a situation, the writ petitioners or the 
members of the Bar could approach the Chief Justice of India; 
or the Law Minister - But instead of resorting to such a F 
procedure, the writ petitioners had adopted an unwarranted 
short-cut knowing it fully well that on the ground of the 
suitability, the writ petitions were not maintainable. 
JUDICIARY: Judicial Appointments - Guiding factors -
Discussed. 
G 
JUDICIAL REVIEW: Judicial Appointments - Held: 
Judicial review is permissible only on assessment of eligibility 
- and not on suitability. 
77 
H 
78 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
The collegium of the Madras High Court consisting 
of the Chief Justice and two senior most Judges 
recommended a list of 12 persons comprising of ten 
advocates and two District Judges for consideration by 
the collegium of Supreme Court for appointment as 
B Judges of the Madras High Court. The said list was 
forwarded to the Ministry of Law and Justice, 
Government of India, the Supreme Court of India as well 
as to the Government of Tamil Nadu as required under 
the law. 
c 
The respondent filed a writ petition before the Madras 
High Court seeking a direction to the Union of India and 
the Supreme Court collegium to return the said list as the 
recommendations therein were not suitable as per the 
assessment of the respondent and other members of the 
D Bar for elevation. The Division Bench of the Madras High 
Court entertained the writ petition and passed the orders 
dated 8.1.2014 and 9.1.2014. In the first order, an Interim 
direction was issued directing the Ministry of Law and 
Justice, Government of India to maintain the status quo, 
E 
while the order dated 9.1.2014 restrained the Government 
of Tamil Nadu from making any recommendation in this 
regard and further to maintain the status quo till 21.1.2014. 
The Madras High Court through Registrar General filed 
F 
the instant special leave petition. The Supreme Court on 
13.01.2014 noted the submission that one of the Sitting 
Judge of Madras High Court entered into the court room 
wherein the writ petition was being heard and made 
certain suggestions to the Bench hearing the matter and 
as a result there was commotion in the court room and 
G no conducive atmosphere to proceed further with the 
matter. The Supreme Court restrained the High Court to 
proceed further with the matter and vacated the interim 
order passed by the High Court to maintain status quo 
regarding the process of the recommendations for the 
H reason that it was merely a recommendations and the 
• 
REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS 
79 
v. R. GANDHI & ORS. 
said recommendation has to be filtered at various levels. A 
Disposing of the special leave petitions, the Court 
HELD: 1. The question of an effective representation 
on the Bench and the qualitative assessment of 
elevations are not only to be governed by the magnitude B 
of the practice of a lawyer or only his social or legal 
background. These are factors to be considered 
alongwith the other qualities of intellect and character 
including integrity, patience, temper and resilience. The 
wisdom and legal learning of a particular individual C 
coming from a particular social background may have 
leanings and individual judges are not un-afflicted by their 
notions of social, economic and political philosophy, but 
such matters fall within the realm of suitability to be 
considered by

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