Search the Internet          Tips

Sitting judge should head inquiry panel rarely: SC

"The appointment of a sitting judge as a commission of inquiry has to be made only on rare occasion if it becomes necessary for the paramount national interest of the country," said a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice B N Kirpal, Justice Y K Sabharwal and Justice K G Balakrishnan.

Justice Balakrishnan, writing the judgment, said, "When a sitting judge is appointed to another post, which is a whole time one, and if the decision taken in that capacity is subject to judicial review, it may not be in the best interest of the independence of judiciary."

The bench said sometimes an additional post held by a judge might not be of an equivalent status or might, under different situations, spell out a master-servant situation between the judge and the appointing authority.

"Even though it may not create any conflict of duty or interest, in these days of multifarious litigation, it is always desirable for the judges of superior judiciary to keep away from areas of controversy so that public confidence in our system is not hampered in any way," the bench said.

The judgment came on a petition questioning the status of a sitting high court judge appointed as head of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.

The court also laid down guidelines regarding the appointment of sitting judges as head of tribunals or commissions of inquiry.

However, the bench said a sitting judge should not be appointed as chairman of tribunal whose other members consisted of those who were not qualified to be judges, bureaucrats or revenue officers.

"When a sitting Judge is appointed to a post or tribunal, he shall be amenable to disciplinary jurisdiction only in a manner provided under Article 224(4) of the Constitution if he is a judge of the Supreme Court, or in the manner provided in Article 217(1) read with Article 224(4) of the Constitution if he is a judge of the high court," it said.

Tell us what you think of this report