|
Case Title |
Dr. Kavita Kamboj v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Introduction | The case pertains to the process of appointing District Judges in Haryana and the constitutional obligations regarding consultation between the Governor and the High Court. |
| Factual Background | The Haryana Government sought the Union’s opinion on the recommendations made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court for District Judges’ appointments, bypassing the High Court’s sole consultation. This action was contested, leading to legal proceedings. |
| Legal Analysis | The Supreme Court upheld the necessity for Governors to consult only High Courts for District Judges’ appointments, emphasizing judicial independence and the separation of powers. |
| Applicable Law | Article 233 of the Constitution mandates consultation between the Governor and the High Court for District Judges’ appointments. Various judicial precedents underscore the importance of this consultation process. |
| Conclusion | The Court criticized the State Government for deviating from the constitutional mandate by seeking the Union’s opinion, reaffirming the High Court’s autonomy in the appointment process. |
| Current Scenario | The judgment establishes clear guidelines for the consultation process, reinforcing the importance of upholding constitutional principles in judicial appointments. |
CASE SUMMARY:
Supreme Court reaffirmed that Governors must solely consult High Courts for appointing District Judges. The Court criticized the Haryana Government for seeking the Union’s opinion, deeming it an encroachment on the High Court’s independence. Upholding the High Court’s authority to set criteria for appointments, the judgment stressed the significance of consultations and cited precedents affirming the High Court’s pivotal role. The State’s deviation from consulting only the High Court was deemed unconstitutional, highlighting the need for adherence to constitutional protocols in judicial appointments.
SOURCE: LIVELAW
ALSO READ: BALWAN KHOKHAR vs. CBI
