In addition to imposing a fine of Rs. 50,000, the SC rejects a request to exclude judges in high courts who are attorneys practising in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that it would be “meritless” and a “total waste of judicial time” to give judges in the high courts the same consideration as attorneys who practise in the Supreme Court, with a fee of Rs. 50,000.
Nothing in the Constitution forbids attorneys representing clients in the Supreme Court from being appointed as judges of the high courts, a bench comprising Justices S. K. Kaul and A. S. Oka observed.
An individual who may have been enrolled with a state bar council and afterwards switched to practising before the Supreme Court is ineligible to be nominated as a judge of that court, according to advocate Ashok Pandey, who submitted the plea.
The Constitution’s Article 217 addresses the selection process and requirements for high court judges.
The bench noted in its order from January 2 that the petitioner had cited some letters issued by the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association in support of his argument that the appointment of attorneys currently practising in the Supreme Court to various high courts carries an “imprimatur (mark of approval) of this court.”
The panel stated, “We have allowed the petitioner the full say even though on a cursory reading of the petition it is a meritless and complete loss of judicial time.
The Supreme Court is not one of the courts from which lawyers can be nominated to the high court, according to the interpretation that was attempted to be applied to Article 217(2) of the Constitution.
“There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids attorneys who represent clients in Supreme Court cases from being appointed as high court judges. In actuality, each and every attorney is registered with the state’s bar association, according to the bench.
It stated what the president of the Bar might say would be his opinions, and the supreme court did not endorsing any aspect of the same aside from the general principle that lawyers practising in the top court may be taken into consideration for appointment to the high court in appropriate circumstances.
The bench stated, “It is not as if the petitioner’s mere filing of the case would entitle him for consideration before a Constitution bench of this court.”
It was mentioned that the petitioner is an advocate and ought to be knowledgeable about the law.
The Supreme Court Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee will receive Rs 50,000 as compensation for dismissing the plea, which must be paid within four weeks.
The petitioner had urged the top court to interpret the clause in Article 217 (2) of the Constitution, which states that a person must be an Indian citizen and “has for at least ten years been an advocate of a high court or of two or more such courts in succession” in order to be qualified for appointment as a judge of a high court.
