SURAZ INDIA TRUST versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2011] 4 S.C.R. 224 · Decided: 04-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DEEPAK VERMA, B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
[2011) 4 S.C.R. 224 
SURAZ INDIA TRUST 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
(Writ Petition (C) No. 204 of 2010) 
APRIL 4, 2011 
[DEEPAK VERMA AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
c 
Article 124(2) - Appointment of Supreme Court and High 
court Judges - Writ petition - The petitioner sought review of 
a judgment by nine Judges' Bench of Supreme Court whereby 
the Court declared the primacy of the col/egium in the matter 
of appointment of the Judges of the Supreme Court and the 
0 High Courts - The plea of petitioner was that by the judicial 
verdicts in the two cases, Article 124(2) was practically 
amended, although amendment to the Constitution could only 
be done by Parliament in accordance with the procedure laid 
down in Article 368 of the Constitution - Held: Even at the 
E stage of preliminary hearing for admission of the petition, the 
matter is required to be heard by a larger Bench as this matter 
was earlier dealt with by a three Judges Bench and involved 
very complicated legal issues - Matter placed before the 
Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate directions. 
F 
Advocate on Record Association v. Union of India & Ors. 
(1993) 4 SCC 441; Special Reference No.1 of 1998 (1998) 
7 SCC 739; Coir Board Ernakulam & Anr. v. Indira Devai P.S. 
& Ors. (2000) 1 SCC 224; Bangalore Water Supply & 
Sewerage Board v. A Rajappa (1978) 2 SCC 213; Pradip 
G Chandra Parija & Ors. v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik & Ors. AIR 
2002 SC 296; Union of India & Anr. v. Hansoli Devi (2002) 7 
SCC 273; B.P. Singhal v. Union of India & Anr. (2010) 6 SCC · 
331 - referred to. 
H 
224 
SURAZ INDIA TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 225 
Case Law Reference: 
(1993) 4 sec 441 
referred to 
Para 1 
(1998) 7 sec 739 
referred ·to 
Para 1 
' 
(2000) 1 sec 224 
referred to 
Para 8 
(1978) 2 sec 213 
referred to · 
Para 8 
AIR 2002 SC 296 
referred to 
Para 9 
(2002) 7 sec 273 
referred to 
Para 10 
(2010) s sec 331 
referred to 
Para 11 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 
204 of 2010. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
G.E. Vahanvati, A.G., A.K. Ganguli, (A.C.}, Bharat Sangal 
(A.C) R.R. Kumar Suraj Daiya (Petitioner-In-Person) for the 
appearing parties. 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 32 of the 
Constitution by the present petitioner claiming itself to be the 
F 
registered Trust under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Trust 
Act, 1959. It has been established in the legal arena for the 
larger public interest. The Trust's motto is to challenge those 
provisions of law which are ultra vires and unconstitutional. 
Basically the petitioner has sought the review of the judgment 
G 
by nine Judges' Bench of this Court in Advocate on Record 
Association v. Union of India & Ors., (1993) 4 SCC 441; so 
also in the case of Special Reference No.1 of 1998 (reported 
in (1998) 7 SCC 739), whereby this Court declared the primacy 
of the collegium in the matter of appointment of the Judges of 
the Supreme Court and the High Courts. 
H 
226 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 4 S.C.R. 
A 
2. As Mr. Rajiv Daiya, Chairman of the Trust appeared in 
person and was not able to render any assistance to the Court, 
thus, we requested Mr A.K. Ganguli, learned Senior counsel 
alongwith Mr. Bharat Sangal to assist the Court as amicus 
curiae. The petition raises large number of complicated issues. 
B Meanwhile, we also sought a~sistance of the learned Attorney 
General for India. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
3. Shri A.K. · Ganguly, learned senior Advocate, has 
submitted: 
That the method of appointment of a Supreme Court Judge 
is mentioned in Article 124(2) of the Constitution of India which 
states: 
"Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be 
appointed by the President by warrant under his hand ana 
seal after consultation with such of the Judges of the 
Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the States as 
the President may deem necessary for the purpose and 
shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty five years. 
Provided that in the case of appointment of a Judge 
other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of India shall 
always be consulted." 
It may be noted that there is no mention: 
(i) 
for any Collegium in Article 124(2). 
(ii) 
The word used in Article 124(2) is 'consultation', and 
not 'concurrence'. 
(iii) 
The President of India while appointing a Supreme 
Court Judge can consult any Judge of the Supreme 
Cour
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.