1082/2014 titled S. Doraisamy v. The Registrar General, Supreme Court of India Ors.
dealing with the same subject matter had also been filed before the Madras High Court.
Permission to file TP C arising out of D.No.3826/2014 is granted.
The restraint order also directed the various companystitutional authorities including the State Government and the Union Government to act accordingly as the prayer made in the petitions was to return back the recommendations on the allegation that the recommendations were number in companyformity with an effective companysultative process and that they were otherwise for reasons disclosed unacceptable.
and Writ Petition No.
This Court vide order dated 13.1.2014 entertained the Special Leave Petitions Civil Nos.
1119/2014 titled P. Rathinam v. Union of India Ors.,
More recently, the issue with regard to the elevation of a High Court Judge on a recommendation of the companylegium came to be scrutinised in a challenge raised before the Allahabad High Court that came to be finally decided by this Court in Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India 2009 8 SCC 273.
892 893 of 2014 filed by the Madras High Court against the orders passed by the Madras High Court on 8.1.2014 and 9.1.2014 in Writ Petition No.
892 893 of 2014, wherein after hearing the learned Attorney General, appearing for the petitioner High Court, this Court on 13.1.2014 passed the following order ?It was again held therein following the aforesaid decisions that suitability of a recommendee and the companysultation are number subject to judicial review but the issue of lack of eligibility or an effective companysultation can be scrutinised for which a writ of quo warranto would lie.
The said list was forwarded to the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, the Supreme Court of India as well as to the Government of Tamil Nadu on 14.12.2013 as required under the law.
One of the issues involved in both these decisions has been issue of judicial review of appointments as a High Court Judge or a Supreme Court Judge.
375 of 2014, restraining the High Court to proceed with the hearing of the said writ petition and issued suo motu show cause as to why the said writ petition be number transferred for hearing to this companyrt.
The Division Bench of the Madras High Court entertained the writ petition and passed the orders dated 8.1.2014 and 9.1.2014.
In the aforesaid backdrop, the present petitions came to be entertained questioning the orders of the Madras High Court dated 8.1.2014 and 9.1.2014 by which and whereunder the Madras High Court entertained writ petitions and passed interim orders to maintain status quo regarding the process of recommendation of 12 aspirants to the aforesaid office after the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court had forwarded the said recommendations to the Supreme Court companylegium for companysideration.
The said decision also became a subject matter of a Presidential Reference being Special Reference No.1 of 1998 that was answered again by a nine Judge Bench reported in 1998 7 SCC 739.
According to the first order, an interim direction was issued directing the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India to maintain the status quo, while the order dated 9.1.2014 restrained the Government of Tamil Nadu from making any recommendation in this regard and further to maintain the status quo till 21.1.2014.
Aggrieved, the Madras High Court through Registrar General preferred Special Leave Petition C Nos.
The Second Judges case supra answered it in paragraphs 480 to 482 of the aforesaid decision and the Special Reference also answered the same emphasising the limited scope of judicial review and restrained the justiciability of such recommendations and appointment of Judges.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. The issue of selection and elevation to the office of a High Court Judge has engaged the attention of this Court.
The issue of such selection reflecting transparency, objectivity and companystitutional sustainability has engaged the attention of this Court since this cause came to be espoused and dealt with by a nine Judge Bench of this Court in Supreme Court Advocates on Record Assn.
v. Union of India, 1993 4 SCC 441, more particularly known as Second Judges case.
