SUNIL SAMDARIA versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE AND OTHERS

Citation: [2018] 10 S.C.R. 289 · Decided: 23-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
289
SUNIL SAMDARIA
v.
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
LAW AND JUSTICE AND OTHERS
(Writ Petition (C) No. 835 of 2017)
FEBRUARY 23, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Arts. 217 and 224 – Appointment of
Additional Judges of High Court – Petitioner challenged
appointment of respondent nos.2 and 3 as Additional Judges of
High Court on two grounds – Firstly, both the appointments having
been made for a period of less than two years violates Art.224 and
secondly, both respondents were retired members of judicial service
of the State and notification was issued when both were not holding
a judicial office, hence they were not eligible for appointment as
Additional Judges of the High Court u/Art. 217(2) – Held:
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 retired from the post of District Judge
respectively on 30.09.2016 and 31.07.2016 after attaining the age
of superannuation of 60 years – Notification appointing respondent
Nos.2 and 3 was issued on 12.05.2017 by which appointment of
respondent no.2 was made till 01.09.2018 whereas the appointment
of respondent no.3 was made till 02.07.2018 – The question as to
when remaining tenure of a person to be appointed as Additional
Judge is less than two years, whether such appointment is in
conformity with Art.224 or not, was neither gone into nor any opinion
was expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of S.P .Gupta
whereas an observation was made therein which supports the view
that in case where Additional Judge has been appointed for a period
of two years, he would cease to be Judge if he attains the age of 62
years prior to the expiration of his term of two years – This clearly
supports that the tenure of appointment of Additional Judges who
have less than two years to retire is not contrary to Art.224 – Insofar
as second ground is concerned, a plain reading of eligibility as
provided u/Art.217(2)(a) does not make the respondent nos.2 and
3 ineligible for appointment as Additional Judge of the High Court
– Art.217(2)(a) does not indicate that qualification is also meant
[2018]  10  S.C.R. 289
                                                  289
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
290
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
that apart from holding 10 years a judicial office, the incumbent
should also be holding judicial office at the time notification u/
Art.224 is issued.
Constitution of India – Art.224 – Purpose and object – Held:
Appointment of Additional Judges was envisaged as appointment
to cope with the increased work load of cases in different High
Courts – The temporary increase in the business of the High Court
or by reason of arrears of work therein was a reason for appointment
or reason for invoking power u/Art.224 – But to cope with the
increase in business of the High Court and the arrears of cases
emergent steps are needed by all to fulfill the object and purpose
for which constitutional provision was brought in place, enormous
delay in appointment of Judges of the High Courts not only frustrate
the purpose and object for which Art.224(1) was brought into the
Constitution but belies the hope and trust of litigant who comes to
the High Courts seeking justice and early disposal of their cases –
It is, therefore, in the interest of all the stakeholders, including the
judiciary, that definite timelines are drawn for each stage of the
process, so that process of appointment is accomplished within a
time bound manner.
Constitution of India – Art.217(2)(a) – Qualification for
appointment of a Judge of the High Court – Use of word ‘held’ in
Art.217(2)(a) – Words and Phrases.
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Article 224 of the Constitution of India provides
for appointment of Additional and Acting Judges. The period for
appointment of Additional Judges of the High Court as mentioned
in Article 224(1) is “for such period not exceeding two years”.
The Constitution Bench in S.P. Gupta case has considered in detail
Article 224 of the Constitution, its purpose and object. [Para 8]
[296-D-E]
1.2 The  observations were made by the Constitution Bench
in the S.P. Gupta case that when although three Additional Judges
were initially appointed for a period of two years but they were
further appointed only for a period of three months and after that
only one was continued for a period of one year. The Constitution
Bench having noticed the purposes of Article 224 has observed
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
291
that when arrears of pending cases are such that 

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