A Bench comprising Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice A.S. Oka, on Monday, observed that there is no provision in the Constitution of India which prohibits lawyers practicing in the Supreme Court to be appointed as judges of High Courts.
The petitioner, an advocate, Mr. Ashok Pandey, argued that a person who has been enrolled with a State Bar Council and subsequently shifted practice to the Supreme Court is ineligible to be appointed as a judge of that High Court. Also, he apprised the Bench that names of four advocates practicing in the Supreme Court have been recommended in the list of recommendations from Allahabad High Court. He added that in the last few years six such persons have been appointed by the High Court. It was indicated that the same is in blatant violation of Article 217(2) of the Constitution.
Mr. Pandey argued that the appointment and recommendation of Supreme Court lawyers as judges of High Court is in clear violation of Article 217(2), which sets out the eligibility as under –
“(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court unless he is a citizen of India and—
(a) has for at least ten years held a judicial office in the territory of India; or
(b) has for at least ten years been an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession.”
Mr. Pandey submitted that ‘such Courts in succession’ in Article 217(2) is meant by High Court and does not include the Supreme Court. He contended – “The Chief Justice (High Courts) can consider the names of those lawyers who are appearing before him.”
Upon hearing the petitioner, the Bench recorded in its order
“..on a bare reading of the petition, it is meritless and a complete waste of judicial time. The reading sought to be put to Article 217 would amount to the saying that the Supreme Court is not one of the courts from which judges can be appointed to the High Courts…There is nothing in the Constitution which provides a prohibition for a lawyer practicing in the Supreme Court to be appointed as a judge of the High Courts. In fact every lawyer is enrolled at the Bar Council of a particular State.”
Considering the nature of the matter, the fact that the petitioner is an advocate and is supposed to be well versed in law, the Bench dismissed the plea with cost, which was directed to be deposited within 4 weeks with the Mediation Centre.
[Case Title: Ashok Pandey v. Union of India And Ors. WP(C) No. 823/2022]
Written by: Kashish Gupta
0 Comments