LexSMT. K. VIJAYA LAKSHMI versus GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HOME (COURTS C1) DEPARTMENT AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 4 S.C.R. 364 A SMT. K. VIJAYA LAKSHMI v. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HOME (COURTS C1) DEPARTMENT AND ANR. B (Civil Appeal No.1389 of 2013) FEBRUARY 18, 2013 [A.K. PAT.NAIK AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] C Constitution of India, 1950: Article 234 - Appointment as Civil Judge denied - On the basis of police report alleging association of the candidate and her husband with banned political party - All the relevant D papers of police investigation not placed by State Government to the High Court on administrative side - State itself took decision that her candidature could not be considered in view of adverse police report - Held: Since the complete papers were not placed before High Court on administrative side, it cannot be said that there has been E meaningful consultation with High Court as required u/Art. 234 - High Court administration thus failed in discharging its responsibility u/Art. 234 - Direction to State Government to place the Police Report before the High Court on the administrative side. F Article 22(1) - Appointment as Civil Judge - Denied on the basis of police report alleging association of candidate's husband (an advocate) with a banned political party - Plea of the candidate that her husband might have appeared as G an advocate for some litigants belonging to that party - Held: The candidate cannot be made to suffer for the role of her husband who was discharging his duty as an advocate in furtherance of fundamental rights provided u!Art. 22(1) of the litigants - Also as per rules framed by Bar Council of India, H 364 K. VIJAYA LAKSHMI v. GOVT. OF A. P. TR. SEC. 365 HOME AND ANR. an advocate is bound to accept any brief and that it is duty of A advocate to uphold the interests of his client - Constitution of India, 1950- Article 22(1) - Advocates Act, 1961 - s. 49 - Bar Council of India Rules - rr. 11 and 15 - Judicial Service. Judicial Review - Concerning appointment of a civil 8 judge - Permissibility - Held: Judicial review in such matter is permissible, if there is any breach or departure from Art. 234 or Judicial Service Rules - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 234 - Judicial Service. The appellant, who was a practicing advocate C participated in the recruitment process for the post of (Junior) Civil Judge. She was selected for the post and her name appeared in the merit list. But she was not appointed on the ground that her husband, a practicing advocate was having close links with CPI (Maoist) Party D which was a prohibited organization. The appellant filed writ petition challenging the non- inclusion of her name in the list of Junior Civil Judges, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution and she sought for mandamus to issue her order of appointment. While contesting the petition, the State Government alleged that the appellant too had close links with CPI (Maoist) Party. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that when the appointing authority i.e. State Government did not find it fit to appoint the concerned candidate to the judicial post, the High Court was not expected to interfere in that decision; and that judicial review was not available in matters where the State was exercising the prerogative power. In appeal to this Court, a police report was produced whereby it was alleged that the appellant was sympathizer of CPI (Maoist) Party and was also a member E F G of Chaitanya Mahila Samakhya (CMS) a frontal H 366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 4 S.C.R. A organization of CPI (Maoist). Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The High Court erred on the administrative side in discharging its responsibility under Article 234 of B the Constitution, and then on the Judicial side in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. Prima facie, on the basis of the material on record, it is difficult to infer that the appellant had links/associations with a banned organization. The finding of the Division Bench C in that behalf can not therefore be sustained. There is no material on record to show that CMS was a banned organization or that the appellant was its member. It is also not placed on record in which manner she had participated in any of their activities, and through which D programme she tried to intensify the activities of CMS, as claimed in the report. While accepting that her husband m
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.