The Supreme Court of India rendered a historic decision in the 1981 case of sp gupta vs union of india, popularly referred to as the “judges transfer case.” In this case, S.P. Gupta and other Supreme Court supporters brought a public interest lawsuit contesting the constitutionality of certain procedures pertaining to the selection and removal of Indian justices.
sp gupta vs union of india Case Facts
- This case addressed several petitions pertaining to significant constitutional issues concerning judge nomination and transfer of judges as well as the independence of the judiciary.
- The legitimacy of directives from the Central Government regarding the non-appointment of two judges was one of the topics brought up.
- The petitioners requested the release of all correspondence between the Chief Justice of Delhi, the Law Minister, and the Chief Justice of India in order to substantiate their allegation.
- Under section 123 of the indian evidence act, which states that evidence derived from unpublished official materials on state affairs cannot be given without the permission of the head of the relevant department, and article 74(2) of the indian constitution, which states that the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers to the President is unable to be inquired into in any court, the state, however, claimed privilege against disclosure of these documents.
- A witness called to present a document in court is required to do so by Section 162 of the Evidence Act, and the court will address any objections.
sp gupta vs union of india Issues
- The primary question in this case concerned whether the Central Government’s directive prohibiting the appointment of new judges and the temporary replacement of existing justices in High Courts was constitutional.
- There was also controversy around the letter that disclosed communications between the Chief Justice of India, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, and the Minister of Law.
- There was also a challenge to the petitioners’ locus standi.
- The judiciary’s independence and the process for appointing judges to higher courts constituted another crucial concern.
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The petitioners in sp gupta vs union of india argued that the Central Government’s order was constitutionally valid in their petitions. They contended that the prospect of losing their permanent positions as judges was an indirect kind of coercion used by this order to get judges to agree to their appointment as additional judges.
- Additionally, the petitioners requested the release of correspondence pertaining to judges’ temporary transfers and non-appointments.
- In the case of sp gupta vs union of india, there was also an allegation made that the President had not fulfilled their obligation under Article 216 of the Constitution to appoint judges in a way that would properly handle the backlog of cases.
- The petitioners therefore requested a writ of mandamus be issued against the President. They further asserted that the process specified in Article 124 had not been appropriately followed.
Respondent:
- The respondents on the disclosure issue exploited Article 74(2), which states that, in accordance with section 123 of the indian evidence act, 1872, any advice the President takes from any of the ministers in the Council of Ministers cannot be contested or questioned in court, nor can unpublished documents be used as evidence in court.
- On a further point, they said that as the petitioner has not suffered any harm, the petition cannot be maintained. The judges who had been appointed as additional judges had to file it if it was required.
- Since the petitioners did not experience any harm or loss as a result of the Central Government’s directive, the Court is not required to hear the petitions.
sp gupta vs union of india Judgment
- A majority ruling of 5:2 in SP Gupta v. Union of India upheld the right decision to not extend the term of Judge S.N. Kumar, one of the additional judges. A seven-judge panel of the Indian Supreme Court heard the case.
- The creation of a collegium to suggest names of candidates to the President for the appointment of Supreme Court and High Court justices was suggested by Justice Bhagwati.
- On the other hand, Justice Pathak and Tulzapukar emphasized the value and authority of the Chief Justice of India’s judgment over that of others.
- Everyone present agreed that “consultation” meant thorough and efficient discussion, necessitating that constitutional officials base their choices on all available and consistent information.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
