Writ Against appointment of AP High Court Judge Dismissed - Petitioners imposed cost of Rs. 50000 each - SC
RESPONDENT No. 3 in this case before the Supreme Court is a sitting Judge of the AP High Court. Next month he will become the senior-most judge of the High Court and he has over six years service left and so is almost sure to become the Chief Justice of a High Court and eventually a Supreme Court Judge.
Two advocates of the AP High Court filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court for quashing the appointment of this judge of the High Court on the grounds that at the time of his appointment, a criminal trial was pending in which the respondent Judge was not only an accused but a proclaimed offender and that even at the time of his enrolment as an advocate he had concealed the criminal proceedings and in the relevant column of the application for enrolment with the Bar Council, he falsely stated that there was no pending proceeding against him.
The criminal case in question dates back to the year 1981 when he was a student of Nagarjuna University. The students of the University, it appears, complained of inadequate public transport facilities for commuting from their homes to the University as only a few buses plying between Guntur and Vijayawada stopped at the University. They demanded that more buses should stop at the University. As is not uncommon with the youth in this country , some of the students of the University took to agitation in connection with the demand and at about 8.30 p.m. on February 13, 1981, a group of about 30 students put road blocks on the GNT road, opposite Nagarjuna University, causing stoppage of all vehicles on the road. At about 9.15 p.m., a bus of the State Transport Corporation, on its way from Guntur to Vijayawada, arrived there when there was already a heavy jam and pulled up at the road flank. In such situations, unfortunately a State bus is the softest and the most vulnerable target. In this case also, the State bus became the target of the agitating students' ire . The driver of the bus was pulled down and the door to the driver's seat was damaged. Some miscreants pelted stones on the bus and smashed its windscreen and glass windows with iron rods. One of the passengers also received some injuries. By this time, a police party also came to the spot. At this stage, an attempt was made to set fire to the bus by throwing a burning oil cloth tied to a rod inside the bus. But, a policeman put out the burning cloth and the bus was saved from any further damage. Shortly thereafter, the police dispersed the agitating students and restored normalcy. On the same day at 11.00 p.m. the driver of the bus lodged a first information report in connection with the incident at Mangalagiri Police Station where it was registered as Crime No. 55 of 1981 under Sections 147, 342, 427 and 324 of the Penal Code. The FIR was against unknown persons and the accused were described as “Nagarjuna University students”.
In the writ petition and in course of hearing of the case,the respondent Judge has been repeatedly called, a little loosely and rather uncharitably (in the words of the Supreme Court), an “absconder” and a “proclaimed offender” in a case of robbery and burning down of a bus.
From the record of the case, Supreme Court found it very difficult to hold that respondent No. 3 was even aware that in some record buried in the courts at Mangalagiri he was named as an accused and he was required to appear in the court in connection with that case.
Before his appointment as a judge of the High Court, he was the Additional Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh. If the case would have been within his knowledge, it is unimaginable that he would not have attended to it and got it concluded one way or the other.
In his report the Chief Justice, Andhra Pradesh High Court stated:
"29. It does appear that Justice XXX was unaware of the pendency of the criminal case. I say this from the record of the case, which speaks for itself, and the contents of which need not be repeated. I also say this for another reason.
32. In my opinion Justice XXX was truly unaware of the criminal case against him and he deserves to be believed when he says so."
The Supreme Court held,
"We have no hesitation in holding that at the time respondent No.3 was being considered for appointment as a judge of the High Court, he was unaware of any case being pending in which he was named as an accused and it is quite wrong to refer to him as “an absconder and a proclaimed offender” in the case. This finding leads to another and that is, it is not a case of suppression of any material fact by respondent No.3 or at his behest. Here we wish to make it clear that had it been a case of deliberate and conscious suppression of material fact by respondent No.3 the position would have been entirely different. But that is not the case here."
The Supreme Court noted that in 1993, respondent No. 3 was a candidate for the post of the Member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and in that connection, he was interviewed by a Selection Committee headed by a sitting judge of the Supreme Court. He was selected for appointment and was issued an appointment letter dated September 8, 1995 as judicial member in the ITAT. The appointment letter was undoubtedly issued to him only after police verification and nothing was mentioned even at that stage about any criminal case pending against him. He did not accept the appointment is another matter altogether.
In his report to the Chief Justice of India the Chief Justice, Andhra Pradesh High Court has made the following comment:
"27. The incident occurred almost 30 years ago. The case against Justice Ramana was withdrawn almost 10 years ago. That it should be raked up now is a little inexplicable. The case does not seem to have been sensational in any manner whatsoever so that someone would be following it up. Therefore, it is a little odd that it should have suddenly surfaced now. It is possible that there is some reason behind digging up this case, but I am unable to fathom the motive."
The Supreme Court observed,
"It is indeed very important to uphold the "institutional integrity" of the court system, but it is equally important to protect the court from uncalled for attacks and the individual judges from unjust infliction of injuries."
The petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- payable by each of the two petitioners. The cost amount must be deposited in a fund for the welfare of the employees of the Andhra Pradesh High Court within four weeks.
The Supreme Court delivered this judgement yesterday and we bring it to you today.