Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Lok Prahari Through Its General ... vs Union Of India on 8 December, 2022

Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka, Vikram Nath

     ITEM NO.102                   COURT NO.2                  SECTION PIL-W

                         S U P R E M E C O U R T O F      I N D I A
                                 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     Writ Petition(s)(Civil)      No(s).    1236/2019

     LOK PRAHARI
     THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
     S.N.SHUKLA I.A.S. (RETD)                                     Petitioner(s)

                                           VERSUS

     UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                 Respondent(s)
     ( IA No. 58504/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS, IA No.
     75079/2021 – CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION, IA No. 72386/2021 - GRANT OF
     FURTHER RELIEF and IA No. 72382/2021 - MODIFICATION OF COURT ORDER)

     WITH
     W.P.(C) No. 689/2021 (X)
     (FOR ADMISSION )


     Date : 08-12-2022       These matters were called on for hearing today.


     CORAM :                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH


     Amicus Curiae           Mr. Arvind Datar, Sr. Adv.

     For Petitioner(s)       Petitioner-in-person

                             Mr. Amrendra Kumar Mehta, AOR

     For Respondent(s)       Mr. R. Venkataramani, Attorney General
                             Mr. R. Bala, Sr. Adv.
                             Mr. Vinayak Mehrotra, Adv.
                             Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv.
                             Mr. B.K. Satija, Adv.
                             Mr. Adit Khorana, Adv.
                             Ms. Neela Kedar Gokhale, Adv.
                             Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

                             Mr. ANS Nadkarni, Sr. Adv.
                             Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
Sanjay Kumar
Date: 2022.12.10
                             Mr. Sachin Patil, Adv.
12:49:16 IST
Reason:                      Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv.
                             Mr. Risvi Muhammed, Adv.


                                            1
Mr. Durgesh Gupta, Adv.

Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR

Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, AOR
Mr. Parikshit Ahuja,Adv.
Ms. Praveena Bisht, Adv.
Ms. Vindhya Mehra, Adv.
Mr. Kartik Lahoti, Adv.
Ms. Madhur Jhavar, Adv.
Ms. Shivangi Malhotra, Adv.

Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR
Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv.
Ms. Kshitij Singh, Adv.

Mr. Romy Chacko, AOR
Mr. Chandan Kumar Mandal, Adv.

Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR

Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR
Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Adv.
Ms. Sakshi Garg, Adv.

Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
Mr. Mahendra Pal Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Prakash Jadhav, Adv.
Mr. Ravichandra Jadhav, Adv.
Mr. Dhanesh Ieshdhan, Adv.
Mr. Premnath Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Varun Varma, Adv.
Mr. Abbula Kalam, Adv.
Mr. Mohd. Apzal Ansari, Adv.

Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR
Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv.

Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR

Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR

Mr. Mukul Kumar, AOR

Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR
MS. Shipra Jain, Adv.
Ms. Riya Kalra, Adv.

Mr. Apoorv Kurup, AOR

Mr. P. I. Jose, AOR


             2
Mr. Anupam Mishra, Adv.

Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR

Mr. Ashwarya Sinha, AOR

Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv.
Mr. T. G. Narayanan Nair, AOR
Mr. Manu Krishnan, Adv.
Ms. Swathi H. Prasad, Adv.

Mr. V. Balachandran, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Naidu, Adv.
For M/S. KSN & Co.

Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR
Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Adv.
Ms. Shashi Pathak, Adv.

Mr. Siddharth Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR
Mr. Ajay Kanojiya, Adv.
Mr. Bishwendra Singh, Adv.
Mr. Mustafa Sajad, Adv.
Ms. Shivani, Adv.
Ms. Vipasha Singh, Adv.

Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR
Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv.

Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Sharma, Adv.
For M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co.

Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR

Mr. K.S. Gill, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. S.K. Rajora, Adv.
Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv.
Ms. Niharika Dwivedi, Adv.
Ms. Shweta, Adv.
Mr. Narendra Pal Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Adv.
Mr. C.M. Jha, Adv.
Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, AOR




             3
            UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following


                                  O R D E R

The learned Attorney General and Mr. Arvind Datar, learned Amicus Curiae have agreed to re-look into the issue of the MOP keeping in mind the aspect that the purpose is to provide quick disposal of cases of appointing ad hoc Judges which should not itself become so cumbersome so that it is unworkable. These are persons who have already worked as Judges and in the wisdom of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India advised by the Collegium are the persons who are capable of taking the load of the work. They may be from the same Court or any other High Court.

We have put a caution on the last date of hearing while taking note of the aspect of vacancies being less than 20% to trigger of the alternative process, we must keep in mind the special needs of some big Courts, where it is a challenge itself to fill in the vacancies and invariably, the vacancies are more than 20% historically. This parameter may be examined whether relaxation can take place to meet the needs of these large Courts. One thought which emerged and may require some examination is whether eminent senior lawyers who are willing as a part of their social contribution to work in different High Courts as Additional/Acting Judges for a specified period is something which can be explored. Reference may be made to Article 224 of the Constitution of India in this behalf, in fact, from time to time suggestions have come from senior counsel offering to do this part 4 of their social service and even proposing that they are willing to forego right to practice in the Court where they have been appointed as Additional and Acting Judges.

We do believe that given the current arrears, some out of the box thinking is required. In fact, in the present case, it is something which the Constitution makers thought of at the time of framing of the Constitution.

List the matters on 8th February, 2023 in miscellaneous matters.

Liberty to mention for early listing, if the counsel are able to argue to a methodology earlier than that. We may notice that a list of recommendation on ad hoc Judges by different Chief Justices of the High Courts is placed before the Bench along with Status Report dated 07.12.2022.

I.A. No. 75079 of 2021 Issue notice.

Learned counsel for the respondents accept notice. An application for clarification and direction has been filed on behalf of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in view of their examination of the judgment in the process of steps to be taken in pursuance thereto. This relates to the plea for appropriate directions clarifying paras 54 and 55 of judgment dated 20.04.2021, where keeping in mind the purport for what is set out in paras 54 and 55 in the relevant place should read as under:

“Thus, the parameter we have adopted is that, at least, the recommendations should have been made for 5 not less than 20% vacancies in order to take recourse to Article 224A.” The application stands disposed of.
I.A. No. 58504 of 2021
Issue notice, returnable on 8th February, 2023.
Learned counsel for the respondents accept notice.
(MEENAKSHI KOHLI)                              (POONAM VAID)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS                          COURT MASTER




                                6