CHANDRA MOHAN versus STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH & ORS.

CHANDRA MOHAN versus STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH & ORS.

The U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, which allow recruitment of District Judges from 'judicial officers' in executive departments and require consultation with the Selection Committee rather than exclusively the High Court, are unconstitutional. District Judges can only be appointed from the judicial service or the Bar, in consultation with the High Court, as per Articles 233 and 236 of the Constitution. Recruitment from the executive without integration into judicial service violates the independence and proper functioning of the judiciary as embodied in the Constitution.

Parties
Appellant: Chandra Mohan; Respondents: State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 August 1966
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeals / Supreme Court Appellate Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Judicial Appointments, Separation of Powers, Interpretation of Constitution Articles 233 237
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Judicial Service Judicial Appointments Separation of Powers Interpretation of Constitution Articles 233 237

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chandra Mohan

Appellant

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeals / Supreme Court Appellate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Governor can appoint District Judges from services other than the judicial service under Article 233 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules contravene constitutional mandates under Articles 233(1) and (2)
  3. 3 Whether recruitment of District Judges from 'judicial officers' of executive departments is unconstitutional

Ratio Decidendi

The U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, which allow recruitment of District Judges from 'judicial officers' in executive departments and require consultation with the Selection Committee rather than exclusively the High Court, are unconstitutional. District Judges can only be appointed from the judicial service or the Bar, in consultation with the High Court, as per Articles 233 and 236 of the Constitution. Recruitment from the executive without integration into judicial service violates the independence and proper functioning of the judiciary as embodied in the Constitution.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules providing for recruitment of District Judges are constitutionally void.
  • Appointments made under the said Rules are illegal.