SC: Person with doubtful integrity can't be appointed as chairpersons.

The Supreme Court has dismissed the petition filed by former Madras High Court judge N Kannadasan and the Tamil Nadu government challenging formers removal from the post of President of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission as his integrity was under doubt.

Justice Kannadasan was appointed as a Additional Judge of Madras High Court for two years but was not confirmed as permanent judge of the High Court and he resigned on November 5, 2005 as there were allegations against him that he lacked integrity.

The Tamil Nadu government requested the High Court vide letter May 30, 2008 to send the names of eligible candidates for appointment as president of the commission.

The Chief Justice of the High Court sent a panel of names for consideration as president of the commission as the post fell vacant on July 5, 2008.

The Madras High Court set aside the appointment of Mr Kannadasan as president of the commission.

Mr Kannadasan and the Tamil Nadu government then challenged the decision of the High Court in the Supreme Court.

The bench comprising Justices Mukundakam Sharma and S P Sinha in a 105-page judgment firmly disapproved the conduct of the State Government as well as of the Chief Justice of the High Court.

The Apex court while dismissing the appeals of Justice Kannadasan and the State Government noted The government of the state Tamil Nadu neither could have asked the High Court to send a panel of names of eligible candidates nor the Chief Justice of the High Court could have sent a panel of names of three judges for appointment to the post of Chairman, State Commission.

Due consultative process as adumbrated by this court in various decision in this case having not been complied with, appointment of Kannadasan was vitiated in law. The Apex Court further concluded Judicial review although have a limited application but is not beyond the pale of the superior judiciary in a case of this nature.

For the purpose of interpretation of Constitution in regard to the status of an Additional Judge the word has been would ordinarily mean a retired judge and for the purpose of examining the question of eligibility, not only his being an Additional Judge but also a qualification as to whether he could continue in the said post if he be appointed as an acting or adhoc judge, his suitability may also be taken into consideration.

We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the process adopted by the High Court and the Chief Justice in asking for a panel of names and sending the same was not legally permissible. The Apex court also took note of the fact that Mr Kannadasan has submitted his resignation but it has not been stated whether the State Government has accepted the resignation and therefore, the judges decided to pronounce the judgment on merit.

The Apex court also noted The High Court in a case of this nature could have beeped into consultative process vis-a-vie eligibility of the candidate through a narrow hole. However, limited it be in the field of judicial review, it can not in our opinion, be held to be beyond its pale.

We are not in a position to persuade ourselves that the opinion of the collegium that the appellant was not found fit to be continued as a judge was not relevant. The opinion of the collegium is based on certain material. It might have arrived at without giving an opportunity of hearing to the judge concerned. What is relevant is the availability of materials on record to enable the Chief Justice of India vis-a-vie the collegium to make any recommendation that he was a fit person to be appointed, If the collegium could not make such a recommendation, fortiori ordinarily the Chief Justice of High Court would also not make such a recommendation.

The opinion of the Chief Justice is indisputably final and thus for all intent and purpose, decision must be based on objective criteria. Such appointment, however, must be made keeping in view the independence of judiciary as the incumbent of the post would discharge judicial sanctions of grave importance.