KUMAR PADMA PRASAD versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

KUMAR PADMA PRASAD versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Respondent no.9 was not qualified for appointment as a Judge of the High Court under Article 217(2)(a) because he never held a judicial office as a part of the judicial service of the State as defined under Article 236(b). The office of Assistant to Deputy Commissioner was neither a judicial office nor part of a judicial service. Even after the creation of Mizoram Judicial Service in 1986, respondent no.9 did not fulfill the ten-year requirement, nor held any of the relevant judicial offices. Hence, his appointment was constitutionally invalid.

Parties
Petitioner: Kumar Padma Prasad; Respondents: Union of India and Ors.; Respondent No.9: K.N. Srivastava
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 March 1992
Procedural Posture
Transferred Case (civil) No.101 of 1991 / Judgment After Transfer From Gauhati High Court to Supreme Court
Outcome
Petition allowed; appointment of respondent no.9 as High Court Judge quashed.
Legal Topics
Appointment of High Court Judges, Qualifications for Judicial Office, Separation of Judiciary From Executive, Judicial Service Definition
Constitutional Law Appointment of High Court Judges Qualifications for Judicial Office Separation of Judiciary From Executive Judicial Service Definition

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kumar Padma Prasad

Petitioner

Union of India and Ors.

Respondents

K.N. Srivastava

Respondent No.9

Procedural Posture

Transferred Case (civil) No.101 of 1991 / Judgment After Transfer From Gauhati High Court to Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent no.9 was qualified for appointment as a Judge of the High Court under Article 217(2) of the Constitution.
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'judicial office' and 'judicial service' under Articles 217(2)(a) and 236(b).

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent no.9 was not qualified for appointment as a Judge of the High Court under Article 217(2)(a) because he never held a judicial office as a part of the judicial service of the State as defined under Article 236(b). The office of Assistant to Deputy Commissioner was neither a judicial office nor part of a judicial service. Even after the creation of Mizoram Judicial Service in 1986, respondent no.9 did not fulfill the ten-year requirement, nor held any of the relevant judicial offices. Hence, his appointment was constitutionally invalid.

Court Disposition

Petition allowed; appointment of respondent no.9 as High Court Judge quashed.

Orders

  • Appointment of K.N. Srivastava as High Court Judge is quashed.
  • Union of India and other respondents are directed not to administer oath or affirmation under Article 219 to K.N. Srivastava.