Case Note & Summary
The dispute centered on the age of a sitting puisne Judge of the Calcutta High Court. The appellant had given a date of birth at the time of his appointment, but records of his public examinations showed a divergent date. The Union Home Minister, after correspondence with various parties including the appellant and the Chief Justice of India, determined the appellant's correct date of birth to be December 27, 1901. The President, by order passed on May 15, 1961, approved the decision and the consequent proposal that the appellant be asked to demit office on December 26, 1961, when he would attain the age of sixty. The Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court thereafter did not allot any judicial work to the appellant after that date. The appellant filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court under Article 226 challenging this action. That petition had a troubled procedural history: initially dismissed in limine by a single judge, then a Special Bench directed issuance of a Rule Nisi, and the respondent's appeal to the Supreme Court against that direction was dismissed. The matter then came before a five-judge Special Bench of the Calcutta High Court, which by majority dismissed the appellant's writ petition. The appellant obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court; the Union of India was later added as a respondent. In the meantime, the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 inserted clause (3) into Article 217 of the Constitution, providing that any dispute as to the age of a Judge of a High Court shall be decided by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, and this clause was made retrospective. At the final hearing, both parties conceded that the only question was whether the President's order of May 15, 1961 could be deemed a decision under Article 217(3). The Court held that the age of a Judge given at the time of appointment could be re-examined, and that Article 217(3) gave the President exclusive power to determine such a dispute, divesting the courts of jurisdiction. The Court further held that formal consultation with the Chief Justice of India was mandatory and that the decision taken by the Home Minister, with only informal consultation, could not be treated as a decision of the President. The Court also found that natural justice required that the concerned Judge have a reasonable opportunity to present evidence, and in this case the President did not have the appellant's evidence before him. The appellant's earlier refusal to produce evidence was justified because the executive lacked jurisdiction in the pre-amendment legal position. The Court concluded that the order of May 15, 1961 did not satisfy the requirements of Article 217(3) and could not be deemed valid under that provision. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was entitled to a decision by the President of India as to his age under Article 217(3) and passed appropriate orders accordingly.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Tenure of High Court Judges - Reopening of Age Dispute - Constitution of India, Article 217(3) - The Court rejected the appellant's contention that his age as declared at appointment could never be questioned, holding that disputes about a sitting Judge's age should be resolved by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India to protect the administration of justice - Held that the age of a Judge given at appointment can be re-examined (Paras Not mentioned). B) Constitutional Law - Presidential Decision-Making - Exclusive Power and Mandatory Consultation - Constitution of India, Article 217(3) - Article 217(3) confers exclusive jurisdiction on the President to determine the age of a sitting High Court Judge, divesting courts of this inquiry; formal consultation with the Chief Justice of India is mandatory, though procedure is otherwise discretionary - Held that the decision of the Home Minister approving the age was not a decision of the President, and informal consultation did not satisfy the mandatory requirement (Paras Not mentioned). C) Constitutional Law - Natural Justice - Opportunity to Present Evidence - Constitution of India, Article 217(3) - Implicit in Article 217(3) is the requirement that the Judge concerned be given a reasonable opportunity to give his version and produce evidence; in this case, the President decided without the appellant's evidence, which was justified because the appellant's refusal to produce evidence rested on the legal position that the executive lacked jurisdiction prior to the amendment - Held that the order was invalid for violating natural justice (Paras Not mentioned). D) Constitutional Law - Retrospective Amendment - Validation of Prior Orders - Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, Section 4(b) - Section 4(b) deemed clause (3) to have always been inserted, thus the appeal was to be decided on the basis that the President's order could be treated under Article 217(3) if justified on merits - Held that the order did not satisfy the requirements of Article 217(3) and could not be deemed valid (Paras Not mentioned). E) Civil Procedure - Res Judicata - Dismissal in Limine - Not Applicable - The Court held that the earlier dismissal of the appellant's writ petition by the Punjab High Court did not operate as res judicata because it was not on merits - Held that res judicata did not bar the present proceedings (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of the President dated May 15, 1961 approving the Home Minister's decision amounted to a decision on the question of the appellant's age as a Judge of the Calcutta High Court under Article 217(3) of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the order of the President dated May 15, 1961 was not a valid decision under Article 217(3) because the decision had been taken by the Home Minister and the consultation with the Chief Justice of India was informal and not mandatory formal consultation; further, natural justice was violated as the President did not have the appellant's evidence. The Court declared that the appellant was entitled to a decision by the President of India as to his age under Article 217(3) and passed orders in terms agreed to by both parties.
Law Points
- Article 217(3) confers exclusive jurisdiction on the President to decide age of a sitting High Court Judge
- formal consultation with Chief Justice of India is mandatory
- natural justice requires opportunity to present evidence
- age given at appointment can be re-examined
- decision by Home Minister is not Presidential decision
- retrospective amendment does not validate invalid order
