ANAND KUMAR versus SRI KATTALI BHASKARAN & ORS.

ANAND KUMAR versus SRI KATTALI BHASKARAN & ORS.

The President of India determines the age of a Chief Justice or Judge of a High Court under Article 217(3) as a judicial function, and this process is beyond the reach of the Council of Ministers. Courts cannot issue writs of mandamus when the President is seized of the matter under Article 217(3).

Parties
Petitioner: Anand Kumar; Respondent: Sri Kattali Bhaskaran; Respondent: Union of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 January 1988
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Dismissal at Supreme Court
Outcome
Petitions dismissed.
Legal Topics
Judicial Function of President, Determination of Judge's Age, Independence of Judiciary, Mandamus
Constitutional Law Judicial Function of President Determination of Judge's Age Independence of Judiciary Mandamus

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anand Kumar

Petitioner

Sri Kattali Bhaskaran

Respondent

Union of India

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Dismissal at Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the President of India or the Council of Ministers determines the age of a High Court Chief Justice under Article 217(3)
  2. 2 Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued in such determination
  3. 3 Whether Article 74 applies to this judicial function

Ratio Decidendi

The President of India determines the age of a Chief Justice or Judge of a High Court under Article 217(3) as a judicial function, and this process is beyond the reach of the Council of Ministers. Courts cannot issue writs of mandamus when the President is seized of the matter under Article 217(3).

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed.

Orders

  • Special Leave Petitions dismissed.
  • No writ of mandamus shall issue.