SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO ORDER REMOVAL OF JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR OF MADRAS HC

SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO ORDER REMOVAL OF JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR OF MADRAS HC 17TH DEC, 2008 The Supreme Court disapproved the action of its own Chief Justice in making Justice S Ashok Kumar as permanent judge of the Madras High Court, despite the fact that the reports about the personal integrity, character and competence of Justice Kumar were not favourable. A bench, comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and Mukundukam Sharma, while disposing of a PIL filed by former Union Law Minister, senior advocate Shanti Bhushan and another lawyer Kamini Jaiswal, challenging the appointment of Justice Kumar in its judgement noted, ‘in the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to the prayer of the petitioner, but we have no hesitation in saying that a person who is not suitable to be appointed as a permanent judge on the ground of unsuitability due to adverse factors on account of mental and physical capacity, adverse material related to character and integrity and relevant matters, which are so paramount and sacrosanct for the functioning of a judge, should not be continued as an additional judge.’ The apex court has, however, refused to order the removal of the concerned judge. ‘Even when an additional judge is appointed as a permanent judge, he does not become immune from action, if circumstances so warrant,’ the bench added. ‘Whenever materials are brought to the notice of Chief Justice about lack of mental and physical capacity, character and integrity, it is for him to adopt such modalities which according to him would be relevant for taking a decision in the matter,’ he noted. The apex court added, ‘so far, as respondent number two (Justice Kumar) is concerned, it appears that he has been transferred to some other High Court in public interest. ‘If it comes to the notice of the Chief Justice that action needs to be taken in respect of him for any aberration while functioning as a judge, it goes without saying that appropriate action as deemed proper shall be taken. ‘The matter can be looked at from another angle. Supposing, instead of accepting the recommendation for appointment as a permanent judge, the Chief Justice would have extended the period of additional judgeship for two years which is maximum time permissible, there would not have been any requirement for taking the views of the collegium (as contended by the petitioner) and the result ultimately would have been the same, that is, respondent number two would have continued as a judge. ‘It is to be noted that he is due to retire on July 9, 2009. As noted above, at various points of time, when the term of appointment as an additional judge of respondent number two was extended, there was no challenge. The situation prevails for more than two years. The clock cannot be put back.’ Earlier, the name of Justice Kumar for being made a permanent judge of High Court, was rejected twice. UNI

"Loved reading this piece by AEJAZ AHMED?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Join our Telegram group

Join our Whatsapp group