The Allahabad High Court bench, comprising Justices Attau Rahman Masoodi and Brij Raj Singh, is deliberating on the petition that scrutinizes the amendment’s alignment with the Constitution of India
The Allahabad High Court has been approached with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that puts into question the recent amendments made to the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975, specifically focusing on Rule 5 which was modified in 2023. This legal challenge has sparked a noteworthy debate on the constitutional validity of direct recruitment of advocates into the higher judiciary, a move that has implications for the legal fraternity and the judiciary’s independence.
Also Read- Allahabad High Court: Reason And Satisfaction Of The Order Is Necessary By Any Court (lawchakra.in)
The bench, comprising Justices Attau Rahman Masoodi and Brij Raj Singh, is deliberating on the petition that scrutinizes the amendment’s alignment with the Constitution of India. The petitioner, represented by counsel Ashok Pandey, argues that the amendment to Rule 5, facilitated under the powers granted by Article 309 of the Constitution, oversteps the bounds set by Article 233(2). This contention raises critical questions about the balance of power and the constitutional safeguards designed to maintain the judiciary’s independence and integrity.
Ashok Pandey’s argument hinges on the assertion that the High Court’s recommendation, which served as a catalyst for amending Article 309 (Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State), constitutes an undue influence over the rule-making process. This, according to Pandey, undermines the amendment’s validity and places it at odds with the constitutional framework. The crux of the argument is that the amendment, by allowing direct recruitment of advocates into the higher judiciary, might not only exceed the eligibility criteria outlined in the Constitution but also disrupt the established processes for judicial appointments.
On the other side of the courtroom, the counsel for the High Court and the State, Gaurav Mehrotra, presents a contrasting viewpoint. Mehrotra challenges the petitioner’s motives, suggesting that the PIL, filed by an aspirant of the examination, might be driven by personal interests rather than genuine public concern. This accusation introduces a layer of complexity to the case, questioning the legitimacy of using public interest litigation as a vehicle for personal grievances.
Also Read- Calcutta High Court Issues Strong Statement Condemning CBI’s Delay In Filing Appeal (lawchakra.in)
Furthermore, Mehrotra emphasizes the necessity of interpreting Article 233(2) which says, (A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment.) in conjunction with Article 233(1) which says,
(Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State,) to fully grasp the legal and constitutional context. This approach advocates for a holistic understanding of the Constitution.
In a pivotal moment during the proceedings, the Division Bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Brij Raj Singh acknowledged the gravity of the matter, stating,
“Having regard to the submissions put forth, prima facie, we find that the matter requires consideration. We leave the preliminary objection open to be considered at a later stage.”
This statement underscores the bench’s openness to delve deeper into the constitutional queries raised, without immediately dismissing the petitioner’s concerns.
The case, titled Trideep Narayan Pandey v. Union Of Bharat (PIL No. – 109 of 2024), sees Advocates Ashok Pandey, Nivedita Shukla, and Sachin Kumar representing the petitioner, while Advocate Gaurav Mehrotra stands for the respondent. This legal battle promises to be a landmark in the discourse on judicial appointments and the balance of power within the Indian legal system.
As the legal battle unfolds, the Allahabad High Court has directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit within four weeks, setting the stage for a continued examination of this pivotal issue. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the principles of judicial independence, the separation of powers, and the future of legal practice in India. As the debate over the constitutional validity of the UPHJS Rules amendment continues, the legal community and the public alike await a resolution that will uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary, ensuring that the rule of law prevails in the face of evolving challenges.