TAG: GS 2: POLITY
THE CONTEXT: The recent Supreme Court ruling pertains to the consultation process for the appointment of District Judges in Haryana, highlighting the constitutional provisions and the role of the High Court and the State Government in such appointments.
EXPLANATION:
Governor’s Consultation with High Court:
- The Supreme Court emphasized that as per Article 233 of the Constitution, the Governor of a State is mandated to consult only the High Court concerning appointments of District Judges.
- The Court underscored that the State Government’s role is limited to consulting the High Court in this regard.
- In this case, the Haryana Government sought legal opinion from the Union Government regarding recommendations made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court for District Judiciary appointments.
- The Supreme Court found fault with this action, stating that it infringed upon the independence of the High Court’s functioning.
Importance of High Court’s Opinion:
- The Court emphasized that the High Court’s opinion on District Judges’ appointments is crucial as it is best positioned to assess the suitability of candidates.
- Referring to precedents, the Court highlighted that the Governor should engage in constructive dialogue with the High Court before making appointments.
High Court’s Role and Criteria:
- In this case, the High Court had set a criterion of candidates securing a minimum of 50% marks in the viva-voce for District Judge appointments.
- The State Government challenged this condition, but the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, stressing the importance of interviews in evaluating candidates’ suitability.
Scope of Consultation under Article 233:
- The Court discussed Article 233’s provision, emphasizing its alignment with constitutional safeguards for judicial independence and separation of powers.
- It reiterated that the Governor’s consultation with the High Court should not involve third parties, as per constitutional mandates.
Constitutional Safeguards and Precedents:
- Citing past judgments, the Court emphasized that any consultation other than with the High Court would violate the constitutional mandate of Article 233.
- It highlighted the need for adherence to constitutional principles in the appointment process.
Faulting State Government’s Action:
- The Supreme Court faulted the State Government for seeking the Union Government’s opinion, stating that such consultation should have been confined to the High Court.
- It emphasized that issues between the High Court and the State Government should be resolved through the consultative process between the two entities.
Article 233:
- Article 233 deals with the appointment of district judges. Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction over such State.
District judges:
- Qualification:
- He should have been an advocate or pleader for 7 years.
- He should be recommended by high court.
- He shouldn’t already be in service of center or state
- Appointment
- The appointment, posting, promotion is made by Governor after consultation with High court. Other appointments of judicial service are made by Governor after consulting high court and state public service commission. Appointments of judicial service below district judge are made by high court.
- District judge (Civil cases) / Sessions judge (Criminal cases) has highest judicial position in district. He has original and appellate jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases.
- Functions and powers
- The Court of the District Judge (Called the District Courts) hears not only appeals against the decisions of the Courts of Sub Judges, but also some of the Cases begin directly in the Court of District Judge itself, Appealing against the decisions of this Court may be heard by the High Court of the State.
- Civil Courts deal with Cases pertaining to disputes between two or more persons regarding property, divorce, Contract and Contract and breach of agreement or landlord-tenant disputes.