Report No. 80
Question No. 8
(a) Three High Courts agree with the suggestion in Question 8. They are also in general agreement with the view that a recommendation of the Chief Justice of the High Court with which the two seniormost Judges agree should normally be accepted. According to one High Court, there should be a provision for consulting
(i) seven Judges, where the High Court consists of (at least) 14 Judges, and
(ii) five Judges, where the High Court consists of less than 14 Judges.
However, the recommendation of the Chief Justice (of the High Court) should normally be accepted. Three High Courts do not agree with the suggestion in Question 8. Such a course may spoil the harmonious atmosphere in the High Court and encourage lobbying and groupism. The matter should be left to the Chief Justice in his discretion.
(b) Some Judges of one High Court agree with the suggestion, but the Chief Justice of that High Court does not agree, as it may encourage lobbying and groupism. In another High Court, some Judges agree with the suggestion, but one Judge does not agree.
(c) A very eminent jurist is of the view that the present provision in Article 217 is "totally inadequate". A High Court Judge, in his opinion, should be appointed after consulting the Chief Justice of India and other Judges of the High Court, or three Chief Justices, or all the Chief Justices of the other High Courts.
(d) Four State Governments and one Law Secretary agree that the seniormost colleagues should be consulted and that the recommendation of the Chief Justice supported by them should be normally accepted. Some of them further add that the Chief Justice should also state the views of his colleagues, along with his own recommendation.