Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for elevation of the following persons as Judges of the Karnataka High Court:
ADVOCATE:
1. Shri Aditya Sondhi,
JUDICIAL OFFICERS:
2. Shri Rajendra Badamikar, and
3. Ms Khazi Jayabunnisa Mohiuddin.
Supreme Court of India
[Statement dt. 04-02-2021]
Supreme Court: In a case where a man was tried for and later acquitted from charges under Section 498A/406/34 IPC, the bench of Ashok Bhushan and MR Shah, JJ held that the apprehension that a stigma shall continue with the name of the appellant is misconceived, as stigma, if any, is already over by acquittal.
The appellant had challenged the order of the Principal Secretary, Madhya Pradesh, Law and Legislative Department declaring him ineligible for being appointed to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) and had sought reconsideration by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. On this the Court said that the mere fact that subsequently after more than a year when the person whose candidature has been cancelled has been acquitted cannot be a ground for reconsideration of his application by the High Court.
Brief facts of the case
The appellant submitted an online form after the High Court of Madhya Pradesh issued an advertisement dated 09.03.2017 inviting applications for recruitment in the post of District Judge(Entry Level) in the cadre of Higher Judicial Service by Direct Recruitment from amongst the eligible Advocates.
Arguments advanced before the Supreme Court
It was argued before the Court that appellant having disclosed the lodging of FIR against him has not concealed any fact before the High Court and he, having been selected on merit, was entitled to be appointed. On the subsequent acquittal of the appellant on 18.09.2019 his case for appointment was to be reconsidered by the High Court and the High Court committed an error in not considering the appellant for appointment. The candidature of the appellant could not have been cancelled merely on the ground of pendency of criminal case.
“The appellant could not have been deprived of the employment after acquittal. There was no other material on record to indicate that antecedent or conduct of the appellant was not upto the mark. The High Court ought to have sent the matter back before the Higher Judicial Service and Examination-cum-Selection Committee for reconsideration.”
On validity of the order declaring the appellant ineligible
The Court, however, noticed that the present is not a case where the name of the appellant was deleted in the select list on the ground of any concealment of criminal case against him. The name of the appellant was included in the select list which was forwarded to the State. The State after character verification submitted a report which report was considered on 18.07.2018 by the Administrative Committee (Higher Judicial Service) and Examination-cum-Selection and Appointment Committee and a resolution was taken that due to pendency of the case under Section 498A, 406-34 IPC on the basis of complaint filed by the wife, the appellant is not considered suitable for being appointed to the post of District Judge.
Stressing of the requirement that after declaration of the merit list the candidates have to be given appointments in time bound manner so that they may join the respective posts, the Court noticed that on the date when the Committee declared the appellant unsuitable, criminal case against him under Section 498A and 406 IPC was pending which was registered on a complaint filed by the appellant’s wife.
“The mere inclusion in the select list does not give an indefeasible right to a candidate. The employer has right to refuse appointment to the candidate included in the select list on any valid ground. The persons who occupy Judicial Service of the State are persons who are expected to have impeccable character and conduct.”
The character verification report was received from the State where pendency of the criminal case was mentioned which was the reason for the Committee to declare the appellant unsuitable.
On reconsideration of application by High Court after acquittal of the appellant
“In the present case the acquittal having taken place after the close of recruitment process, there was no question of examining the acquittal order by the High Court at the time of finalizing the selection process.”
The Court noticed that there can be no dispute that in event it is found that decision by which the candidature of a candidate is rejected is arbitrary or actuated by malafide such decision can be interfered by the Constitutional Courts. However, the decision of Examination-cum-Section and Appointment Committee for holding the appellant unsuitable was based on the relevant consideration, i.e., a criminal case against the appellant under Section 498A/406/34 IPC was pending consideration which was registered on a complaint filed by the wife of the appellant.
“Such decision of the Committee was well within the jurisdiction and power of the Committee and cannot be said to be unsustainable. The mere fact that subsequently after more than a year when the person whose candidature has been cancelled has been acquitted cannot be a ground to turn the clock backward.”
On stigma attached with appellant’s name
It was argued before the Court that due to deletion of the name of appellant from select list a stigma is attached to him, for removal of which this Court may issue notice in this SLP. The Court, however, said that the appellant having already been acquitted by the judgment dated 18.09.2019 stigma of criminal case has already washed out and the criminal case having resulted in acquittal no stigma is attached to the appellant’s name on the above ground.
[Anil Bhardwaj v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 832, 13.10.2020]
Supreme Court Collegium on 23-09-2020, approved the proposal for elevation of the following Judicial Officers, as Judges of the Madras High Court:
1. Shri G. Chandrasekharan,
2. Shri A.A. Nakkiran,
3. Shri Sivagnanam Veerasamy,
4. Shri Ilangovan Ganesan, and
5. Smt. Ananthi Subramanian.
6. Smt. Kannammal Shanmuga Sundaram,
7. Shri Sathikumar Sukumara Kurup,
8. Shri Murali Shankar Kuppuraju,
9. Ms. Manjula Ramaraju Nalliah, and
10. Smt. Thamilselvi T. Valayapalayam.
Supreme Court of India
[Collegium Statement dt. 23-09-2020]
Collegium Statement
Supreme Court Collegium approves the proposal for elevation of the following Judicial Officers, as Judges of the Allahabad High Court:
Supreme Court of India
[Collegium Statement st. 14-08-2020]
Supreme Court Collegium approves the proposal for elevation of the following Advocates and Judicial Officers as Judges of the Kerala High Court:
Supreme Court of India
[Collegium Resolution dt. 14-08-2020]
Karnataka High Court initiated suo motu proceedings to quash criminal complaint against a Civil Judge, Ballari District.
Absolute protection granted to Judicial Officers under Section 3 (1) of Judges (Protection) Act, 1985
Bench passed the present order for the initiation of suo-motu proceedings under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
A complaint was filed under Section 200 CrPC to which Civil Judge and JMFC, Vijay Kumar S. Jetla is shown as the accused 1.
Allegation as placed in the complaint was that the said Judicial Officer and other 9 persons arraigned as accused is of commission of offences punishable under Sections 166, 205, 120-A, 211, 219 and 499 read with Section 34 of Penal Code, 1860.
The said complaint was filed to the Chief Justice of this Court. Grievances were as follows:
Secretary, Chief Justice responded to the complainant that the remedy available for his grievance is on judicial side.
Now at present the said complaint is said to be pending in the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC .
Bench stated that in view of the absolute protection granted to the Judicial Officers under Section 3 (1) of Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, the complaint could not have been entertained and registered as against the Judicial Officer.
Court added that, if the complaint would have been allowed to proceed further, it would completely set at naught the protection granted to the Judicial Officers under Section 3(1) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.
Hence, Registrar General has been directed to file a suo-motu Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashment of private complaint on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC only in so far as the first accused mentioned therein, who is the Judicial Officer. [Suo-Motu Criminal Petition, decided on 21-07-2020]
Read the Order, here:
Shri Padmaraj Nemachandra Desai.
Supreme Court of India
[Collegium Statement dt. 20-04-2020]
President appoints the following as Judges of Gujarat High Court:
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Notification dt. 28-02-2020]
Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for elevation of the following Judicial Officers as Judges of the Gujarat High Court:
1. Ilesh Jashvantrai Vora,
2. Gita Gopi,
3. Ashokkumar C. Joshi, and
4. Rajendra M. Sareen
Supreme Court of India
[Collegium Statement dt. 12-02-2020]
In furtherance to the Government of India’s policy of zero tolerance for crime and in an endeavor to fast track the dispensation of justice, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has taken steps to enhance and streamline the process of international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters.
The MHA has issued Revised Guidelines for Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters in December 2019. The revised guidelines can be accessed here.
The revised guidelines provide step-by-step guidance to the investigation agencies for drafting and processing Letters Rogatory / Mutual Legal Assistance Requests and Service of Summons, Notices & other Judicial Documents. By incorporating various legal and technological developments in recent years, it aims to make the documentation in this regard more precise and focused as well as compliant with International requirements.
The guidelines have also taken into account the concerns raised by various courts for prompt and timely responses in the service of documents on persons residing abroad. As an initiative, the revised guidelines have provision for service of documents on authorities of foreign country preferably within 10 days of receipt of request in respect of offences committed against women and children.
Training in mutual legal assistance in criminal matters has also been taken up for investigators, prosecutors and judicial officers.
The transnational nature of crime and the digital explosion has blurred geographical boundaries for criminal activities. The availability of evidence and criminals outside the sovereign jurisdiction of countries has necessitated the transformation of scope and nature of the conventional investigation.
India has entered into Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties/ Agreements with 42 countries and is a signatory to various international conventions i.e. UNCAC, UNTOC, etc. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is the designated ‘Central Authority’ for India. Generally, assistance is sought and received in the form of Mutual Legal Assistance Requests/Letters Rogatory and Service of Summons/Notices/Judicial documents on persons residing abroad.
In order to streamline the process of rendering/ seeking such assistance, MHA had issued guidelines regarding investigation abroad & issue of Letters Rogatory (LRs) in 2007 & regarding Service of Summons/Notices/ Judicial process on the persons residing abroad in 2009.
Over the decade, there have been substantial changes in International Cooperation based on new legislation, regulations & conventions and amendments in procedural laws all over the world including India. These changes necessitated the need for a comprehensive review of existing guidelines to keep them abreast of the modern era’s requirements.
Ministry of Home Affairs
[Press Release dt. 08-01-2020]
[Source: PIB]
Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka, CJ. and Mohammad Nawaz, J. directed the state government to refund the amount already deducted from the salaries of judicial officers by the end of February 2020.
The New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme was made operational to the State Government employees from 01.04.2010. This was made applicable to those employees who joined the services on or after 01.04.2006. The scheme provided for employees’ contribution of 10% of the basic pay and dearness allowance (DA) with the matching contribution from the State Government. The first petitioner is an association of the Judicial Officers in the State. The first relief claimed was for issuing a writ of mandamus seeking a direction against the respondents to clarify whether the New Pension Scheme is applicable to Judicial Officers. A writ of mandamus was also sought for directing the State of Karnataka to continue with the old pension scheme.
In a connected writ, the State Government based its submission on the Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004.Karnataka Civil Services Rules which are deemed to have been made under the Karnataka Civil Services Act, 1978, govern the pension payable to the government servants. It was submitted that except to the extent of the recommendations of the first and second Judicial Pay Commissions, the Judicial Officers are government servants. Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 were made under Article 309 read with 233, 234 and 235 of the Constitution of India and therefore, all the Judicial Officers are civil servants. Therefore, no merit remains in the writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioners, Shashi Kiran Shetty submitted that separate pay Commissions, the First National Judicial Pay Commission (popularly known as Justice Shetty Commission) as well as the recommendations made by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (popularly known as Justice Padmanabhan Commission) were established to consider and recommend the pay and allowances payable to the Judicial Officers and the recommendations made by both the Commissions were accepted by the Supreme Court by issuing necessary directions to all the State Governments to implement the same. The submission, in short, was that the pay of the Judicial Officers is governed by the Orders of the Apex Court accepting both the reports with modifications and therefore, the act of applying the new pension scheme which requires 10% deduction from the salary of the Judicial Officers is completely in gross violation of the directions issued by the Supreme Court.
Additional Advocate General, R. Subramanya submitted that as the payment of pension is concerned, the Judicial Officers are equivalent to the Government Servants except to an extent of certain modifications made by the first and second National Judicial Pay Commissions. He submitted that in the above mentioned Rules 2004, the word ‘service’ has been defined as ‘Karnataka State Judicial Services’ and, therefore, all the rules regulating conditions of service of the members of the State Civil Service are applicable to the Judicial Officers as well. He further submitted that in All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 274, Supreme Court appointed Second Judicial Commission headed by Justice Padmanabhan. It had recommended for continuation of the pension fixed by the First National Judicial Pay Commission at the rate of 50% of the average emoluments drawn during the 10 months preceding the age of superannuation.
In view of the above, the Court observed that State Government, without seeking permission of the Supreme Court, has no power to tinkle with the quantum of the salaries and pension payable to the Judicial Officers. As noted earlier, the new pension scheme contemplates contribution of 10% of the basic salary and dearness allowance by the Judicial Officers and the said amount will be deducted from the salary of the Judicial Officers. Thus, looking from any angle, the act of the State Government in applying the new pension scheme to the Judicial Officers of the State appointed after 1st April 2010 and consequential act of making 10% deductions from their salary is not only completely against the recommendations of the two National Judicial Pay Commissions Report but also in breach and gross violation of the directions issued by the Supreme Court and hence, the same is illegal.
In a similar case of Vihar Durve v. State of Maharashtra, 2017 SCC Online Bom 7560, deduction of 10% of the basic salary of the Judicial Officers was challenged before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court and the said challenge was upheld by the Bombay High Court.
Therefore, Government Order bearing No. FD (SPL) 04 PET 2005, of 31st March 2006 (Annexure-A in Writ Petition No.44240 of 2013) is not applicable to the Judicial Officers of the Karnataka cadre.[Vijayakumar Rai v. State of Karnataka, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 2186, decided on 28-11-2019]
Proposal for appointment of following four Judicial Officers as Judges of the Orissa High Court:
AND;
Proposal for appointment of following eight Advocates as Judges of the Orissa High Court:
On the basis of interaction and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that Shri Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi, Advocate (mentioned at Sl. No. 8 above) is suitable for being appointed as Judge of the Orissa High Court.
As regards Ms. Savitri Ratho, (mentioned at Sl. No. 4 above), consideration of the proposal for her elevation is deferred for the present.
As regards S/Shri (1) Gautam Mukherji, (2) Samir Kumar Mishra, (3) Prasanna Kumar Parhi, (4) Prafulla Kumar Rath, (5) Durga Prasad Nanda, and (6) Pravat Kumar Muduli, Advocates, having regard to the material on record and all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that their cases deserve to be remitted to the High Court. The Collegium resolves to recommend accordingly.
Collegium is of the considered view that Shri Bibhu Prasad Routray, Judicial Officer (mentioned at Sl. No. 2 above) is suitable for being appointed as Judge of the Orissa High Court.
As regards S/Shri (1) Satya Narayan Mishra, (2) Gautam Sharma, and (3) Biranchi Narayan Mohanty, Judicial Officers, having regard to the material on record and all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that their cases deserve to be remitted to the High Court.
Supreme Court of India
[Collegium Resolution dt. 03-10-2019]
1. Shri Satish Kumar Aggarwal,
2. Shri Ashok Kumar Verma,
3. Shri Sant Parkash Phutela,
4. Shri Karamjit Singh,
5. Shri Vivek Puri,
6. Mrs. Meenakshi I. Mehta, and
7. Mrs. Archana Puri
For the purpose of assessing merit and suitability of the above-named recommendees for elevation to the High Court, we have carefully scrutinized the material placed on record. On the basis of interaction and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that S/Shri (1) Ashok Kumar Verma, (2) Sant Parkash Phutela, (3) Karamjit Singh, (4) Vivek Puri, (5) Mrs. Meenakshi I. Mehta, and (6) Mrs. Archana Puri, Judicial Officers are suitable for being appointed as Judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
As regards Shri Satish Kumar Aggarwal, having regard to the material on record and all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the
considered view that his case deserves to be remitted to the High Court. The Collegium resolves to recommend accordingly.
In view of the above, the Collegium resolves to recommend that S/Shri (1) Ashok Kumar Verma, (2) Sant Parkash Phutela, (3) Karamjit Singh, (4) Vivek Puri, (5) Mrs. Meenakshi I. Mehta, and (6) Mrs. Archana Puri, Judicial Officers, be appointed as Judges of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice.
Supreme Court of India
[Collegium Resolution dt. 26-09-2019]
Proposal for appointment of following four Judicial Officers as Judges of the Delhi High Court:
On the basis of interaction and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that S/Shri (1) Talwant Singh, (2) Rajnish Bhatnagar, (3) Ms Asha Menon, and (4) Brijesh Sethi, are suitable for being appointed as Judges of the Delhi High Court.
Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ. resolves to recommend that S/Shri (1) Talwant Singh, (2) Rajnish Bhatnagar, (3) Ms Asha Menon, and (4) Brijesh Sethi, Judicial Officers, be appointed as Judges of the Delhi High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice.
[Notification dt. 06-05-2019]
Supreme Court of India
Appointment of following four Judicial Officers as Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and three Judicial Officers as Judges of the Telangana High Court:
1 Ms. B.S. Bhanumathi (A.P.)
2 Shri Ch. Manavendranath Roy (A.P.)
3 Smt. P. Sree Sudha (Telangana)
4 Shri M.Venkata Ramana (A.P.)
5 Smt. C. Sumalatha (Telangana)
6 Shri A. Hari Haranadha Sarma (A.P.)
7 Shri N. Tukaramji (Telangana)
In order to ascertain suitability of the above-named recommendees mentioned at Sl. Nos. 3, 5 and 7 above, for elevation to the Telangana High Court, we have consulted our colleague conversant with the affairs of the Telangana High Court.
As regards recommendees at Sl. Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6 above, there is no sitting Judge in the Supreme Court outside the Collegium for being consulted for this purpose.
“The Collegium is of the considered view that S/Shri (1) Ch. Manavendranath Roy, and (2) M. Venkata Ramana (mentioned at Sl. Nos. 2 and 4 above) are suitable for being appointed as Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.”
As regards (1) Ms. B.S. Bhanumathi, (2) Smt. P. Sree Sudha, (3) Smt. C. Sumalatha (4) Shri A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, and (5) Shri N. Tukaramji (mentioned at Sl. Nos.1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 above), consideration of the proposal for their elevation is deferred for the present.
Collegium resolves to recommend that S/Shri (1) Ch. Manavendranath Roy, and (2) M. Venkata Ramana, Judicial Officers, be appointed as Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice.
Collegium Resolutions
[Dated: 15-04-2019]
Supreme Court of India