NDLI: Kumar Padma Prasad Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Kumar Padma Prasad Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Content Provider: Supreme Court of India

Please Log-in to view this content

If you are not a registered user, please register first and then use the e-mail id and password to log-in.

Advisory jurisdiction

Arbitration petition

Civil miscellaneous petition

Contempt petition civil

Contempt petition criminal

Criminal appeal

Criminal miscellaneous petition

Curative petition Criminal

Curative petition civil

Death reference case

Disciplinary jurisdiction

Election petition civil

Habeas corpus petition

Miscellaneous application

Review petition civil

Review petition criminal

Special leave petition civil

Special leave petition criminal

Special reference case

Suo moto contempt petition civil

Suo moto contempt petition criminal

Suo moto transfer petition civil

Suo moto transfer petition criminal

Suo moto writ petition civil

Suo moto writ petition criminal

Tax reference case

Transfer petition criminal

Transferred case civil

Transferred case criminal

Writ petition civil

Writ petition criminal

Kumar Padma Prasad Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	judicial office
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case Type	Transfer Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Petition Allowed
Headnote	Constitution of India, 1950 : Articles 50, 136, 139A, 217 (2), 233, 236(b), 237-High Court Judge-Appointment-Necessary qualifications-Whether Supreme Court/High Court can exercise jurisdiction on the ground that the incumbent does not fulfil qualifications as required by Article 217. 'Judicial Office'-Concept of-Explained. Government of Mizoram Notification CS/MZ/APPT/79 dated 23.6.1979-Assistant to Deputy Commissioner appointed under Rules 8, 9 and 15 of 1937-Rules for regulation of procedure of officers to administer justice in Lushai Hills, 1937-R.s. 8, 915-Assistant to Dy. Commissioner-Exercising powers analogous to those of a Judicial Magistrate First Class under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Whether holds a judicial office. Independence of judiciary-Necessity for. Administration of justice-Whether High Court can assume jurisdiction on judicial side to probe into matter purely of administrative nature and exclusively within purview of Chief Justice. Words and Phrases ''Judicial Office'', ''Judicial service"-Interpretation of. The Governor of Mizoram, by a letter dated 5.5.1990, addressed to the Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court, recommended the name of respondent no. 9 for appointment as a Judge of the High Court. The bio-data enclosed with the said letter indicated that respondent no. 9, after passing LL.B., joined the Government of Assam in Law Department in 1966 as a Gazetted Officer. He worked on various posts, under the Government of Mizoram and Assam, such as, Law Officer in Finance Department, Under Secretary, Law and Judicial, Registrar Firms, Deputy Secretary Law & Judicial and Deputy Legal Remembrancer. In 1985 he was appointed as Legal Remembrancer and Secretary Law and Judicial. He worked as D.C. (Judicial) in 1987. He also worked as Member/Presiding Officer/Chairman of certain Tribunals/Committees. The bio data described him as belonging to Mizoram Judicial Service. The Chief Justice forwarded the papers to the Minister of Law and Justice Government of India. The Union Law Minister, the Chief Justice of India, the Prime Minister of India and the President of India on their respective turns cleared/approved the name of respondent no. 9 for the appointment. The warrant of appointment was signed by the President of India on 15.10.1991 and the Notification appointing respondent no. 9 as a Judge of Gauhati High Court was issued on 25.10.1991. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court on October 23, 1991 challenging the selection of respondent no. 9 for appointment as a Judge of the Gauhati High Court on the ground that he was not qualified for such an appointment. The High Court passed an interim order holding that it was doubtful if respondent no. 9 possessed qualifications as provided under Article 217(2), and directed that the warrant of appointment of respondent No. 9 issued by the President of India should not be given effect to. Respondent No. 9 was also restrained from subscribing his oath or affirmation in terms of Article 219 of the Constitution. Before the writ petition was filed by the petitioner, the Mizoram Bench of Gauhati High Court suo-motu assumed jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and by its order dated 20.11.1990 directed to register a case against respondent no.9 in respect of anomalies in purchase of law books for the High Court. The Chief Minister, Mizoram by letter dated 7.10.1991 conveyed to the Union Law Minister that a vigilance case was instituted against respondent no.9. The letter dated 8.10.1991 addressed by Chief Justice, Gauhati High Court to the Union Law Minister did not indicate about any such case. The Law Minister ignored the letter of the Chief Minister. Later on the State Government by a wireless message dated 2.11.1991 informed the Department of Justice, Government of India that respondent no.9 had been placed under suspension in view of the case pending against him in the High Court. Respondent No.9 tiled a special leave petition and a writ petition before this Court. Two transfer petitions, one by respondent no.9 and the other by the petitioner, were also seeking transfer to this Court of the writ petition filed by the petitioner in Gauhati High Court. Consequently the said Writ Petition was transferred to and was heard by this Court. It was contended by the petitioner that the appointment of respondent no.9 as a High Court Judge was violative of Article 217(2) of the Constitution as be did not fulfil the qualifications prescribed therein inasmuch as be neither had been an Advocate of a High Court nor had he ever held a judicial office; and that by virtue of respondent's appointment as Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner during the year 1979 in addition to his own duties as Under Secretary, Law and Judicial, be did not hold a Judicial Office as envisaged under Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh
Neutral Citation	1992 INSC 69
Petitioner	Kumar Padma Prasad
Respondent	Union Of India And Ors.
SCR	[1992] 2 S.C.R. 109
Judgement Date	1992-03-10
Case Number	101

Central Library (ISO-9001:2015 Certified)
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
Kharagpur, West Bengal, India | PIN - 721302

See location in the Map
03222 282435
Mail: support@ndl.gov.in

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in