Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by Advocate M. Radhakrishnan challenging the appointment of Justice Subramonium Prasad to the post of Additional Judge to the Court. The petitioner, appearing for himself, asked the Court to declare the elevation of the Justice on June 4 null and void as his appointment did not follow Article 217 of the Constitution of India. As Justice Prasad had not practised in Madras High Court or in any court subordinate to it, for at least 10 years, he contended that this did not give the collegium an opportunity to assess the Judge, and hence disqualified him for the appointment.
Justices P.T. Asha and Indira Banerjee rejected these arguments, stating that while there does exist judicial review on the eligibility of the candidate, the suitability of the candidate does not fall within its ambit. Recognizing the need for independent and able judges, the Bench stated, “Consideration by the Collegium is not based only on appearance of the advocate concerned, but on a whole lot of other facts, based on information, supported by materials on record. It is the strength of the materials on record, which render a decision unquestionable.” Hence, the petition was held untenable as it did not appear that the appointment was in violation of Section 217(2).
86540
103860
630
114
59824