The Supreme Court has dismissed with a cost of Rs 50,000 a plea seeking a direction to not consider advocates practising in the apex court for judgeship in the high courts, saying it is ”meritless” and ”complete wastage of judicial time”.
A bench of Justices S K Kaul and A S Oka observed there is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits lawyers practising in the top court to be appointed as a judge of the high courts.
Advocate Ashok Pandey, who filed the petition, told the bench that as per his interpretation of Article 217 of the Constitution, a person who may have been enrolled with a state bar council and subsequently shifted practice to the apex court is ineligible to be appointed as a judge of that court.
Article 217 of the Constitution deals with appointment and conditions of the office of a judge of the high court.
The bench noted in its January 2 order that the petitioner has referred to some letters released by the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association seeking out a case for appointment of lawyers practising in the apex court to different high courts and seeks to contend that this has an ”imprimatur (mark of approval) of this court”.
”We have given the full say to the petitioner though on a bare reading of the petition it is meritless and complete wastage of judicial time,” the bench said.
It said the reading sought to be put to Article 217(2) of the Constitution would amount to saying that the Supreme Court is not one of the courts from which lawyers can be appointed to the high court.
”There is nothing in the Constitution which provides the prohibition for lawyers practicing in the Supreme Court to be appointed as a judge of the high court. In fact every lawyer is enrolled with the bar council of a particular state,” the bench said.
It said what the president of the Bar may say would be his views and the apex court has not given any imprimatur to any aspect for the same other than the larger principle that in suitable cases, lawyers practising in the top court can be considered for appointment to the high court.
”It is not as if mere filing of the petition by the petitioner would entitle him for consideration before a Constitution bench of this court,” the bench said.
It noted that the petitioner is an advocate and is supposed to be well versed in law.
The bench dismissed the petition with a cost of Rs 50,000 to be deposited within four weeks in the Supreme Court Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee.
The petitioner had urged the apex court to interpret the provision contained in Article 217 (2) of the Constitution where it says that a person shall not be qualified for appointment as a judge of a high court unless he is a citizen of India and “has for at least ten years been an advocate of a high court or of two or more such courts in succession”.
