Supreme Court dismisses petition which questioned the appointment of 2 retired judges as additional judges in high court of Rajasthan

Sabareesh Pillay | School of Law, University of Mumbai Thane Sub-Campus | 16th September 2020

Sunil Samdaria Vs Union Of India, Ministry Of Law And Justice And Others

FACTS:       

In this case, two judges retired after turning 60, they were judges in the district court of Rajasthan. After their retirement, the state government issued a notification that the two judges will be appointed as additional judges in the High Court of Rajasthan. The petitioner Sunil Samdaria, a practicing advocate in the High Court of Rajasthan filed a petition against the appointment of the two retired district judges as the two judges didn’t hold the judicial office anymore and thus they were not eligible to be appointed to hold a judicial office which is an eligibility criterion for being appointed as additional judges in the High Court according to the Constitution of India.

ISSUE:

Whether to hold the position of an additional judge in the high court it is necessary to hold a judicial office?

PETITIONER CONTENTION:

The petitioner, a practicing advocate in the high court of Rajasthan contended that the appointment should be taken back by the state government as under the constitution of India the two judges do not meet the eligibility requirements that is required. As it is defined in the constitution that judicial office means that a position that is a part of the judicial services, and as the two judges fulfill none of the criteria, their appointment should not be accepted and it should be declared as null and void.

RESPONDENT CONTENTION:

The respondent contended that their appointment has been done in view with Article 224 of the Indian Constitution under which the maximum period for the appointment is specified clearly. Hence, it is neither null nor void as alleged by the petitioner. Secondly the respondent mentioned that the claims made by the petitioner are false as both the appointed judges had held the positions of judicial officers for more than 10 years and hence they are very much entitled to be the additional judges in the High Court of Rajasthan.

OBSERVATION BY THE COURT:

The bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice A.K Sikri acknowledged the fact that the two judges had held judicial office for a period of 10 years and dismissed the claims made by the petitioner regarding this. When the petitioner implied that they had held the position and were not holding any currently so they are not eligible. The bench said that “The word ‘held’ which is used in the above section doesn’t show that eligibility is likewise implied that besides holding 10 years a legal office, the officeholder ought to likewise be holding the judicial office at the time when under Article 224 notification was is given.” 

JUDGEMENT:

The court gave the judgment that there was an urgent need to appoint additional judges in the high court as there was a huge burden of cases in the Rajasthan High court and to cope with this burden, it was necessary that the two judges be appointed. The court dismissed the petition by the advocate petitioner and both the judges were appointed as additional judges in the High Court of Rajasthan.