SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

19.06.2021 To, His Excellency Thiru Ram Nath Kovind avargal, The President of India, Rashtrapati Bhavan New Delhi – 110004 , , Hope this letter finds Your Excellency in good health. I am addressing this letter to Your Excellency with deep anguish and

by ·

19.06.2021
To,
His Excellency Thiru Ram Nath Kovind avargal,
The President of India,
Rashtrapati Bhavan
New Delhi – 110004

,
,
Hope this letter finds Your Excellency in good health.
I am addressing this letter to Your Excellency with deep anguish and pain, to bring to your kind notice that Judges from High Courts of many States are not getting adequate representation on the Bench of the Supreme Court of India.
While introducing the Draft Constitution of India, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in his speech said that the Draft Constitution is a ‘Federal Constitution’ and that it has sought to ‘forge means and methods whereby India will have a federation, and at the same time, will have uniformity in all the basic matters which are essential to maintain the unity of the country’. This is the spirit of cooperative federalism running through the Constitution.
The Constitution under Article 1 constitutes India as a Union of States. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly Debates, speaking on the draft Article I said that the Federation is a ‘Union’ because it is indestructible. The Supreme Court of India and High Courts form one single integrated judiciary. The Supreme Court is the highest judicial organ of the country, constituted under Chapter IV of the Constitution titled “The Union Judiciary”. Section 200 of the Government of India Act, 1935 was found in Part IX titled “The Judicature – Chapter I – The Federal Court”. The makers of the Constitution, while drafting a similar provision in Article 103 of the Draft Constitution, titled the Chapter IV as “The Federal Judicature”. However when Dr. B.R. Ambedkar moved an amendment replacing the words “Federal Judicature” with the words “Union Judiciary”, he said that it was consequential to the earlier Article where India has been described as a “Union”. Thus, the use of the word Union was only to emphasise the indestructibility of the institutions and not to take away from their federal character. Therefore, the highest judicial organ in the country is as much federal as the other organs in the sense that it belongs equally to all States.
Art 124 prescribes the qualifications to be appointed as Judges of Supreme Court. Art. 123(3)(a) prescribes the required qualifications for a High Court Judge and Art 124(3)(b) prescribes the required qualification for appointment of an advocate of a High Court as Judge of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is thus composed of Justices from High Courts of various States, as well Advocates who have been directly elevated as Judge of the Court. Therefore, the composition of the Supreme Court must stand as a testament to the spirit of Co-operative Federalism that runs through the veins of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court should necessarily have on its Bench adequate representatives from all the States, in proportion to the sanctioned strength of the State’s High Court. As the final arbiter of disputes, the Court decides not only rights in personam but also rights in rem. Important disputes like disputes between two States, decisions that impact culture, customs, languages etc. are decided by the Court, and therefore representation from each State is of significant importance. The growing size of the Supreme Court’s Bench has only bettered the cause of regional representation. There is no reason as to why all the States should not be adequately represented in the highest Court of the country. I am not addressing Your Excellency to canvass for any particular candidate. However, if elevation to the Bench of the Supreme Court is not done keeping in mind adequate representations to High Courts based on their sanctioned strenght, and if Judges from all High Courts are not considered on equal footing, it not only affects the Judges of the High Courts but the State and its people. In so far as the Judges are concerned, they enter judicial service leaving aside lucrative practices to serve the nation. It is a solemn calling. When their turn comes to be elevated to the highest Court, if they are not considered equally alongside Judges of other High Courts, it sends a wrong message to them. In so far as the people are concerned, we have to bear in mind that the Constitution envisages a co-operative federalism in all its institutions. It cannot be the case that the Bench of the highest Court is filled from only a handful of States. That causes irreparable injury to those from other States. There are equally talented Judges capable of adorning the Bench of the Supreme Court from all High Courts. Thus, inadequate representation of all States on the Bench of the Apex Court is an affront to rights of the State as well the people of the States.
As an example, if we consider the case of the Madras High Court, a chartered High Court with an illustrious history, only one Judge from the Madras High Court is presently serving on the Bench of the Supreme Court of India. I have extracted the breakup of the representation of States on the Bench of the Supreme Court alongside the sanctioned strength of the High Court below to show the disproportionate representation:-
S.No. Name of High Court Sanctioned Strength of the H.C. No. of Judges in Supreme Court
1. Andhra Pradesh 37 2
2. Allahabad 160 3
3. Bombay 94 3
4. Calcutta 72 2
5. Delhi 60 3
6. Karnataka 62 2
7. Patna 53 1
8. Punjab & Haryana 85 2
9. Gujarat 52 1
10. Rajasthan 50 2
11. Madras 75 1
12. Gauhati 24 1
13. Kerala 47 1
14. TOTAL 24
Hence there is no reasonable nexus between the sanctioned strength of the High Court and the representation on the Bench of the Supreme Court.
I have already addressed Your Excellency, as well as made a special mention on the floor of the Rajya Sabha calling for social diversity in appointments to the Higher Judiciary, keeping in mind the wonderfully diverse fabric of our society. India is a Union of States, with unmatched diversity of language, culture, religions and traditions. Therefore, the Bench of the Supreme Court should not be homogenous but reflect the social diversity of this great nation. The time has come where we actively work to have a representative Union Judiciary with judges from all sections of society and gender. This should be in addition to the representation of all High Courts, based on their sanctioned strength.
Being the appointing authority for Judges of the Supreme Court, I humbly request Your Excellency to intervene in this matter urgently and
(i) Direct the Union Government to take all steps to have social diversity and representation of all sections in the appointments of Judges to the Supreme Court; and
(ii) Direct the Union Government to give adequate representation in the appointments of Judges to the Supreme Court to all States and High Courts, based on their respective sanctioned strength;
and thus render justice to the people of all States and oblige.
Thanking you,

P. WILSON

You may also like...