JYOTI PROKASH MITTER versus HONBLE MR. JUSTICE HIMANSU KUMAR BOSE, CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT, CALCUTTA AND ANOTHER

JYOTI PROKASH MITTER versus HONBLE MR. JUSTICE HIMANSU KUMAR BOSE, CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT, CALCUTTA AND ANOTHER

The order passed by the President on May 15, 1961, approving the determination of the appellant's age by the Home Minister, did not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Article 217(3), as it was not a formal decision of the President with proper consultation and the appellant's evidence was not before him. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to a fresh determination by the President in accordance with Article 217(3).

Parties
Appellant: Jyoti Prokash Mitter; Respondent No. 1: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Himansu Kumar Bose, Chief Justice, High Court, Calcutta; Respondent No. 2: Union of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 November 1964
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of President not valid under Article 217(3); matter to be placed before President for proper determination.
Legal Topics
Age Determination of Judges, Powers of President Under Constitution, Natural Justice, Writ Jurisdiction
Constitutional Law Judicial Service Age Determination of Judges Powers of President Under Constitution Natural Justice Writ Jurisdiction

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jyoti Prokash Mitter

Appellant

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Himansu Kumar Bose, Chief Justice, High Court, Calcutta

Respondent No. 1

Union of India

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order passed by the President of India on May 15, 1961, approving the Home Minister's determination of the appellant's age, amounts to a decision under Article 217(3) of the Constitution as amended retrospectively.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements of Article 217(3), including formal consultation of the Chief Justice of India and opportunity to present evidence, were satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi

The order passed by the President on May 15, 1961, approving the determination of the appellant's age by the Home Minister, did not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Article 217(3), as it was not a formal decision of the President with proper consultation and the appellant's evidence was not before him. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to a fresh determination by the President in accordance with Article 217(3).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of President not valid under Article 217(3); matter to be placed before President for proper determination.

Orders

  • Union of India to place matter before President within a fortnight for determination under Article 217(3).
  • If the President decides in appellant's favor, appellant is entitled to continue as judge; otherwise, retirement order stands valid.