Punjab and Haryana High Court sees the state seeking the Union of India’s opinion on the appointment of district judges as a significant threat to the independence of the high court’s functioning

Case: Shikha and others v. State of Haryana and others

Coram: Justice G.S Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerjee

Case No.: CWP-19775-2023

Court Observation: “for the State now to hold out that the it is not for this Court that what are the qualities the judicial officer should possess for promotion to the post of Additional District Judge and on account of representation filed by a person not even affected by the said issue, it would seek opinion from a third party namely the Union of India would amount to a serious assault on the independence of the functioning of the High Court which has been ordained with the selection process, which was sought to be done from the pool of three time the number of candidates called.”

“the State Government was not within its right to take a different decision and overrule the recommendation of this Court on the basis of a meddlesome interloper namely Prem Pal, Advocate who was in no way connected remotely with the selection process.”

“from the Union of India on the representation of Prem Pal (advocate who filed representation to challenge HC’s recommendation) and having fallen back upon the same while not accepting the recommendations of the High Court and not consulting the High Court further and asking it to send the recommendations by holding that resolution of the High Court was not shared and is lacking consultation and apparently is violative of the observations as laid down by the Constitutional Bench.”

“At present as per the figures pointed out by the counsel for the High Court 2,80,287 cases are pending before the Superior Judicial Courts in the State of Haryana. It has also brought to our notice that the pendency in the State of Punjab has gone down since the said State accepted the recommendations of the High Court and effectively had put the officers in place by April, 2023 which had led to the litigation being reduced,”

“It is the duty of the State Government to accept the recommendations and to ensure there is no erosion of public interest in the judicial system and it is for the High Court to step in and uphold the sanctity of the judiciary and ensure that the delivery system is not adversely affected and it would be failing in its duty if the encroachment upon the judicial system is allowed and the aberration is not corrected through the issuance of mandamus”

Previous Posts

In the Vivo Money Laundering Case, the Delhi High Court rejects the pleas of three accused claiming unlawful detention in jail without a judicial order

Patna High Court Grants Appeal Beyond Stipulated Time, Citing CBIC Notification

Sec 300 IPC: The Gujarat High Court asserts that even a single injury leading to the death of the victim can constitute ‘murder’

The Delhi High Court holds that Family Courts may extend the time for filing a written statement if exceptional circumstances are demonstrated

No Inherent Right to Continue: Jammu and Kashmir High Court Denies Relief to Contractual Doctor Seeking Service Extension Following the Closure of COVID Hospitals

Keywords

Punjab and Haryana High Court sees the state seeking the Union of India’s opinion