The objection raised by the learned Attorney General was overruled by the Court by drawing a distinction between fixing the Judge strength in the Courts or selection of judges on one side and the filling up of vacancies on the basis of sanctioned strength on the other.
This Court as an interim measure took the view that while the ratio in S.P. Guptas case left the matter of fixing up of the Judge strength to the President of India under the companystitutional scheme, and the choice of Judges to the prescribed procedure, once the sanctioned strength was determined it was the obligation of the Union of India to maintain the sanctioned strength in the superior Courts and these cases were allowed to proceed.
Article 124 1 of the Constitution provides There shall be a Supreme Court of India companysisting of a Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament by law pre scribes a larger number, of number more than seven other Judges.
The superior judiciary is divided into the Union Judici ary companyered by Chapter 4 of Part V and the High Courts in the States are companyered by Chapter 5 of Part VI of the Con stitution.
Mr. Soli Sorabjee, the succeeding Attorney General, withdrew the objection regarding this Courts jurisdiction and made a statement that he was of the view that it was the companystitutional obligation of the Union of India to provide the sanctioned Judge strength in the superior companyrts and the default, if any, was a matter of public interest and the writ petitions requiring a direction to the Union of India to fill up the vacancies were maintainable.
From time to time the Judge strength in the Supreme Court has been expanded and by the Supreme Court Number of Judges Amendment .
Act, 1986 22 of 1986 , the existing number has been fixed at 25 apart from the Chief Justice.
Ashok Desai, Solicitor General, Ms. A. Subhashini, P.S. Poti, K.R. Nambiar, For Kerala , Probir Chowdhury For Assam , A.K. Panda For Orissa , Ms. G.S. Misra, H.K. Puri, V.S.N. Chari For Bihar , S.K. Agnihotri For Madhya Pradesh , Ms. Kamini Jaiswal For Chandigarh , Ms. S. Dik shit For U.P. , V. Krishnamurthy For Tamil Nadu , B. Parthasarthi For Andhra Pradesh , Ms. Urmila Kapoor Ms. Janani For Manipur , Aruneshwar Gupta, M.N. Shroff For Gujarat .
S. Ganeshan, Ms. M. Karanjawala N.P. , H.S. Anand, H. Parekh and Ms. Sunita Sharma for the Petitioners.
Article 2 14 provides There shall be a High Court for each State.
There is High Court at Delhi though the mandate of Article 2 14 does number apply.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India Subhash Sharma Petitioner in person.
Mahabir Singh For Haryana , A.S. Bhasme For Maharashtra , I. Makwana For Rajasthan , Ms. Urmila Kapur For Manipur and M. Veerappa For Karnataka the Respond ents.
Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1982 2 SCR 365.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, CJ.
13003 of 1985, 1303 of 1987 and 302 of 1989.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Civil Nos.
In response to the rule, the Union of India took the stand through the Attorney General that the petitions were number maintainable and the filling up of the vacancies in the superior companyrts was number a justiciable matter.
Since companymon please were advanced and the relief sought was of similar nature, these applications have been clubbed together and heard from time to time.
The peti tion from Bombay is companyfined to the relief of filling up of vacancies in the Bombay High Court.
