Supreme Court Upholds Appointment of Additional Judges: Sunil Samdaria vs. Union of India (23 February 2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 23 February 2018
Citation: Not Available
Judges: A.K. Sikri, J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.

Can the appointment of Additional Judges to a High Court be challenged based on the duration of their term or their retirement status? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a writ petition filed by a practicing advocate, who challenged the appointment of two Additional Judges to the Rajasthan High Court. The core issue revolved around whether the appointment of Additional Judges for a period less than two years and the eligibility of retired judicial officers for such appointments were constitutional under Article 224 and Article 217 of the Constitution of India. This judgment clarifies the scope and interpretation of these articles, providing guidance on the appointment process of High Court judges.

Case Background

The petitioner, Sunil Samdaria, a practicing advocate of the Rajasthan High Court, filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as Additional Judges of the Rajasthan High Court. The appointments were made via a notification dated 12 May 2017. The petitioner contended that these appointments were unconstitutional on two primary grounds: First, the appointment of the Additional Judges was for a period less than two years, violating Article 224 of the Constitution of India. Second, the appointees were retired members of the Judicial Service of the State of Rajasthan and were therefore ineligible for appointment as Additional Judges. The petitioner sought a declaration that the appointments were non-est and void. The Union of India, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, defended the appointments, asserting that they were fully in accordance with the Constitution.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of two key articles of the Constitution of India:

• Article 224: This article deals with the appointment of Additional and Acting Judges of High Courts. Clause (1) of this article states that Additional Judges may be appointed for a period not exceeding two years.
• Article 217(2)(a): This article outlines the qualifications for appointment as a Judge of a High Court. It specifies that a person must have held a judicial office in the territory of India for at least ten years to be eligible.

The court also considered the original version of Article 224, which pertained to the “Attendance of retired Judges at sittings of High Court,” and how it was amended by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956 to address the increasing workload in High Courts. The court noted that the intent behind the amendment was to allow for the temporary increase in the number of judges to clear pending cases.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Submissions:

• The petitioner argued that the appointment of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as Additional Judges was invalid because their appointments were for a period of less than two years, which, according to the petitioner, violates Article 224 of the Constitution. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87, to support this argument.
• The petitioner further contended that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were ineligible for appointment as Additional Judges because they were not members of the Judicial Service on the date of their appointment, as they had already retired. The petitioner cited Shri Kumar Padma Prasad vs. Union of India, 1992 (2) SCC 428, to argue that only those who are part of the judicial service are eligible for appointment as a High Court Judge.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The Additional Solicitor General, representing the Union of India, argued that the appointments were fully in accordance with Articles 217(2) and 224 of the Constitution. It was contended that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had held judicial office for more than 10 years and were therefore eligible for appointment as Additional Judges.
• The respondent further argued that the maximum period for an Additional Judge is two years, but since respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were attaining the age of superannuation before the expiry of two years, their appointment until their superannuation was valid. The respondents contended that the judgments in Shri Kumar Padma Prasad and S.P. Gupta did not support the petitioner’s contentions.

[TABLE] of Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the appointment of Additional Judges for a period of less than two years is contrary to Article 224 of the Constitution of India.
2. Whether a person who has retired from the Judicial Service is eligible for appointment as an Additional Judge of the High Court under Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution of India.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87: The court examined this Constitution Bench judgment to understand the purpose and object of Article 224. The court noted that while this case discussed the tenure of Additional Judges, it did not address the specific issue of appointments for less than two years when the appointee is retiring.
• Shri Kumar Padma Prasad vs. Union of India, 1992 (2) SCC 428: The court analyzed this judgment to determine the meaning of “judicial office” under Article 217(2)(a). The court reiterated that a judicial office must be part of the judicial service of the state. However, the court clarified that this case did not address the issue of whether a person must be holding a judicial office at the time of appointment.
• Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 1987: This case was referred to in Shri Kumar Padma Prasad to define “judicial office.”
• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Others v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441: This case was cited to highlight the need for timely appointments of judges.

Legal Provisions:

• Article 224 of the Constitution of India: Specifically, clause (1) regarding the appointment of Additional Judges for a period not exceeding two years.
• Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution of India: Regarding the qualifications for appointment as a Judge of a High Court, including having held a judicial office for at least 10 years.
• Article 236(b) of the Constitution of India: Defining “judicial service.”

[TABLE] of Authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court distinguished the judgment in S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87*, stating that the observations made in that case regarding the tenure of Additional Judges were in a different context and did not apply to the present case.
• The court clarified that the judgment in Shri Kumar Padma Prasad vs. Union of India, 1992 (2) SCC 428*, which defined “judicial office,” did not address the issue of whether a person must be holding a judicial office at the time of appointment. It was held that the case did not support the petitioner’s contention.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by a literal interpretation of the constitutional provisions. The court emphasized that the language of Article 224(1) allows for appointments “not exceeding two years,” and the language of Article 217(2)(a) requires a person to have “held” a judicial office for 10 years, without requiring them to be in service at the time of appointment. The court also noted the practical implications of the delay in judicial appointments, emphasizing the need to expedite the process to ensure timely justice.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis:

Logical Reasoning:

The court rejected the petitioner’s arguments, emphasizing that the constitutional provisions should be interpreted based on their plain language and that the precedents relied upon by the petitioner were not applicable to the specific facts of this case. The court also highlighted the need for timely appointments to ensure efficient functioning of the judiciary.

The court’s reasoning was based on the following key points:

• The term “not exceeding two years” in Article 224(1) sets the maximum limit, and an appointment until the age of superannuation, even if less than two years, is within this limit.
• The word “held” in Article 217(2)(a) indicates past possession of a judicial office, not necessarily present possession at the time of appointment.
• The court distinguished the judgments in S.P. Gupta and Shri Kumar Padma Prasad, noting that they did not address the specific issues raised in this case.

The court quoted from the judgment:

• “The word ‘held’ as used in Article 217(2)(a) indicates that what is prescribed is qualification for appointment of a Judge of the High Court is that a person has for at least 10 years held a judicial office in the territory of India.”
• “Use of word ‘held’ in the above clause does not indicate that qualification is also meant that apart from holding 10 years a judicial office, the incumbent should also be holding the judicial office at the time notification under Article 224 is issued.”
• “A plain reading of eligibility as provided under Article 217(2)(a) does not make the respondent Nos.2 and 3 ineligible for appointment as Additional Judges of the Rajasthan High Court.”

Key Takeaways

• The appointment of Additional Judges for a period less than two years is valid if the appointee is reaching the age of superannuation within that period.
• A retired judicial officer who has held a judicial office for at least 10 years is eligible for appointment as an Additional Judge, even if they are not currently in service.
• The judgment emphasizes the need for timely appointments of judges to ensure the efficient functioning of the judiciary.
• The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of adhering to the constitutional provisions and the need for the executive and judiciary to work together to expedite the appointment process.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this judgment, but it emphasized the need for all stakeholders to expedite the process of appointing judges to the High Courts.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the appointment of Additional Judges for a period less than two years is valid if the appointee is reaching the age of superannuation within that period, and that a retired judicial officer who has held a judicial office for at least 10 years is eligible for appointment as an Additional Judge. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Article 224 and Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution of India. This case does not change the previous position of law, but clarifies the existing position.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the appointment of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as Additional Judges of the Rajasthan High Court. The court clarified that the appointment of Additional Judges for a period less than two years is valid if the appointee is reaching the age of superannuation within that period. The court also held that a retired judicial officer who has held a judicial office for at least 10 years is eligible for appointment as an Additional Judge. This judgment provides clarity on the interpretation of Articles 224 and 217(2)(a) of the Constitution and underscores the importance of timely judicial appointments.