Courts - Judges - High Court judges - Chief Justice has got supremacy - suo motu action - Mode to be adopted in view of supremacy of Chief Justice is to allocate work judicial work- Reference to larger bench .
While exercising powers of allocation/distribution of judicial work among the benches, it is open for the Chief Justice to devise his own method of classification of cases to ensure quick and effective disposal of cases and for effective administration of justice. No judge of the High Court can claim to himself any inherent power to take cognizance of a particular cause either on being moved or suo motu unless it is assigned by the Chief Justice to the Judge concerned. [Narashimhasetty vs. Padmasetty. (FB). AIR 1998 Kant 389 = 1998 All HC 4913 = 1998 (3) Curr CC 516 = ILR 1998 Kar 3230 = 1998(2)Kant LJ 73. G.C.Bharuka, P.Vishwanath Shetty and Chidananda Ullal {JJ}]
Court - Transfer of Judge , when takes place -- Transfer of judge does not cease to be a Judge of transferor Court - Transfer does not ipso facto terminate service.
Transferred judge continues to be a Judge of the transferor High Court till he assumes office in the transferee High Court. If it is assumed that the judge immediately ceases to be a Judge of the transferor High Court on his being transferred by the President of India under Art.222 of the Constitution , the cancellation of the said order will lead to a situation that the Judge is no longer a Judge of the transferor High Court and also of the transferee High Court. Till he enters upon his office at the transferee Court, he cannot be Judge of that Court. We do not think this a correct interpretation of Art.217(1)( c) of the Constitution. Considering the dignity and decorum of this High constitutional office, it is just and fair that a Judge on his being transferred shall vacate his office at the earliest. If he continues to discharge the function as a Judge in the transferor High Court that may not be consistent with the constitutional spirit enshrined in Article 217(1)(c) of the Constitution. [M.K.Sasidharan vs The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and ors. AIR 1997Ker 35. K.G.Balakrishnan & K.Narayana Kurup {J}]
Courts - Seating accommodation - Privileges of Advocates and Litigants .
When members of the Bar are to stand inside the court room due to lack of seating facilities, members of the public, even if they are litigants in the same court, cannot claim any right to occupy the seating facilities available inside the court. [P.C.Jose vs Nandakumar. AIR 1997 Ker 243. K.T.Thomas {J}]
Cases in Court - Filling up of vacancies in courts - Judges Strength- Petition maintainable.
Once the sanctioned strength of judges were determined, it was the obligation of the Central Government to maintain the sanctioned strength. It is necessary that the Administration of Justice is made a plan subject and give appropriate attention. When Executive has right to initiate the process by suggesting appropriate names, it cannot depart from the opinion of Chief Justice unless it has some material indicating the appointment to be otherwise desirable. Practice of State Government sending proposals directly to the Centre without reference to the Chief Justice of the State High Court is impermissible [Subhash Sharma vs. Union of India. AIR 1991 SC 631 = 1991(Supp)1 SCC 574. R.N.Misra, M.N.Venkitachaliah and M.M.Punchi {JJ}]
Judges - lack of accomodation - PIL not proper - Problem tackled by administration and Government and not by writ petition.
In spite of the Governments best effort to provide houses to the judges, if there is delay in allotment, that alone should not sensitise lawyers to move court on behalf of judges. The problem should be tackled by the court administration and the government and not by writ petition. [ Chengappa vs State of Karnataka. S.Rajendra Babu. AIR 1991 Kant 5. ]
Judges impeachment motion on parliament - Courts' intervention - Not possible.
Voting on motion of impechment in parliament. At the stage of voting on motion, the process is political. The Parliament is sovereign with respect to conduct of its business. Supreme Court cannot have any say in that political process. If the members had chosen to be absent, it entirely depends upon their will. [Capt.Virendra Kumar. Advocate vs Shiv.Raj Patil, Speaker, Lok Sabha. (1993)4 SCC 97 = (1993)4 JT 466 = (1993)3 SCALE 303.M.N.Venkitachaliah & S.Mohan (J&J) [P.B1]]