Karnataka High Court
Aravind Kamath Puttur vs The Hon'Ble Chief Justice on 17 June, 2019
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy, R Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
WRIT APPEAL No.3019/2018 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. ARAVIND KAMATH PUTTUR
ADVOCATE,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O P N ANANTH KAMATH (EX-BANKER)
AAKASHRAJ NILAYA,
53/18, 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
LALJINAGAR, LAKKASANDRA,
BANGALORE - 560 030.
2. V L JAGADISH
ADVOCATE,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O V.S.LINGAPPA (FARMER)
VEERARAJAPURA VILLAGE,
KIRAGAVALU HOBLI,
MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 424. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.AMARESHA M, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
2
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
OPP. TO VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
SAMPANGIRAMA NAGAR,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560001.
2. THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MEMBERS
OF THE COLLEGIUM,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
OPP.TO VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560001.
3. THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA,
TILAK MARG,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
4. THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND MEMBERS OF THE COLLEGIUM,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA,
TILAK MARG,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
5. THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
JAISALMER HOUSE,
26, MAN SINGH ROAD,
NEW DELHI - 110 011.
6. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3
7. KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
OLD K.G.I.D BUILDING,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001.
8. SHRI MUKUL ROHATGI
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA,
TILAK MARG,
NEW DELHI-110001.
9. SHRI RANJIT KUMAR
FORMER SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA,
TILAK MARG,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
10. ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION BANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
SRI A.P RANGANATH,
VAKALIGARA BUILDING,
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPOUND,
KEMPE GOWDA ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 009.
11. ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION BANGALORE
HIGH COURT UNIT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-PRESIDENT
SRI.HALESH R.G.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560001.
12. ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION BANGALORE
CITY CIVIL COURT UNIT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-PRESIDENT,
SRI.RAMESH.R
CIVIL COURT COMPLEX,
4
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 001.
13. ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION BANGALORE
MAYO HALL UNIT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-PRESIDENT
SRI HITESH JAIN,
MAYO HALL, M.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560001.
14. ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION BANGALORE
MAGISTRATE UNIT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-PRESIDENT,
SRI.RAGHUNATH GOWDA,
MAGISTRATE COURT, HUDSON CIRCLE,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560001
15. PRASHANTH MURTHY V
AGED 42 YEARS,
COMMON MAN,
S/O GOPAL SWAMY,
# 87, 4TH CROSS, TEACHERS COLONY,
KADRENHALLI CROSS,
BANGALORE - 560 070. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1, R2 & R6;
SRI.C.SHASHIKANTH, ASG, FOR R3, R4 & R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE JUDGEMENT
AND ORDER DATED 04/09/2018 PASSED BY A LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION
NO.26652/2018, IS ONE RENDERED VOID AB INITIO, AND SET
ASIDE THE SAME, AND GRANT ALL THE RELIEFS PRAYED FOR IN
THE SAID WRIT PETITION.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
NARAYANA SWAMY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
5
JUDGMENT
This writ appeal is filed by the petitioners No.1 & 2 in W P No.26652/2018 being aggrieved of the order dated 4.9.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.
2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants are practicing advocates. What is important in selection and appointment of Judges is that most eligible, deserving and meritorious candidates are to be appointed. The only means by which it could be made possible is when vacancies are advertised, notified, applications are invited from candidates hailing from humble backgrounds, the first generation lawyers. The current system of selection by invitation, is wholly non- transparent and opaque, has meant denial of equal opportunity to the first generation lawyers, who could in no way less meritorious. This plea was crystal clear. The focus ought not to be who is the selector, but ought to be on the selectee/appointee. There is nothing which could stand in the open selection, no matter whether the situation prior to the 6 judgment in Judges-2 case ought to be the one which is ideal or the current collegium system of appointment, where the Judges appoint themselves. The zone of consideration and selection should reach out to the first generation lawyers, most of whom hail from humble backgrounds, who constitute to be 90% of the legal fraternity who are today completely disregarded inasmuch as they have no Godfathers, none of whom has his/her father, uncle, brother or any immediate relative as a Sitting or former Judge of the High Court or of the Supreme Court or a Cabinet Minister, Chief Minister, Governor and gives them no chance of being considered even while they are eligible and meritorious. It is a travesty of justice that the learned Judge was pleased to hold that the current collegium system of appointment of Judges is the perfect one.
3. It is stated that the collegium system of appointment of Judges to the higher judiciary has meant total denial of equal opportunities in the matter of selection and appointment of Judges to all eligible and deserving candidates, especially the first generation lawyers, the sons and daughters of taxi drivers, 7 farmers, fishermen, rickshaw pullers, daily wagers, teachers etc.,
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondents and perused the impugned order.
5. While the learned counsel for the appellants repeated contents of the appeal memo as grounds in support of the writ appeal, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
6. The appointment to the office of a Judge of a High Court or Supreme Court is not a recruitment or a promotion, but filling up of the said Office by invitation on the basis of merit, competency and standing in the legal profession as an advocate at the Bar or as a District Judge in the case of a High Court Judge and on the basis of experience, ability, competency and reputation of a Judge of a High Court or a member of the Bar or of a person who is considered to be an eminent Jurist in the case of appointment of a Supreme Court Judge. The Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of High Court are, in the words of 8 Hon'ble Verma J., (as he then was) in the Second Judges case, "best equipped to know and assess the worth of a candidate, and his suitability for appointment as a superior Judge".
7. The contention of the appellants is that vacancies are to be notified inviting applications from all eligible persons. Such a course of action is not contemplated either in the Constitution or in any of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject. The office of a Judge of Superior Judiciary (High Court and Supreme Court) is not a post to be filled by recruitment or by way of promotion as is the practice vis-à-vis a service under the State. The said officers are filled by invitation extended to able and competent men and women based on merit irrespective of their class, caste, religion, place of birth or their family background or the professions their parents pursue. It is utmost important that candidates to be appointed as Judges command their ability inter alia, to uphold independence of the Judiciary and be committed to the cause of Justice, which are the quintessence of the duties of a Judge. This is succinctly reflected in the Oath of Office that is administered to a Judge of a High 9 Court or Supreme Court. Referring to Para No.1051 in S P Gupta & others v. Union of India & others (AIR 1982 SC 149), the learned Single Judge was pleased to observe in Para-22 of the order that prayers sought by the appellants are blatantly opposed to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. When the Constitution has prescribed a particular mode of appointment of Judges to the High Courts as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has been further emphasized in the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India (2016) SCC 1) also known as NJAC case, the appellants are not entitled to seek a different method of appointment of Judges to be adopted to High Courts as well as Supreme Court.
9. All the contentions raised in the writ appeal are already urged in the writ petition and considered. The learned Single Judge has passed a considered order and elaborately considered all the contentions raised by the appellants by assigning cogent reasons. We are in respectful agreement with the conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge.
10
Accordingly, writ appeal fails and it is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE akd