Facts of the Case
X, Y, and Z were appointed as judges of a High Court following the constitutional procedure prescribed under Articles 217 and 224 of the Constitution of India, involving consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor, and other constitutional authorities. After their appointment, an advocate practicing before the same High Court filed a petition challenging the validity of their appointments. The advocate alleged procedural irregularities and lack of transparency in the appointment process. The petition was filed not on behalf of any affected litigant but in the advocate’s individual capacity, questioning whether he has the locus standi to challenge judicial appointments.
Issues in the Case
- Whether an advocate has locus standi to challenge the appointment of High Court judges.
- Whether judicial appointments can be challenged through writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
- Whether the appointment of judges is a matter of public interest permitting liberal standing.
- Whether courts can entertain petitions questioning appointments made under constitutional procedure.
Legal Principles Covered to Support Case Proceedings and Judgements
The doctrine of locus standi requires that only a person who has suffered a legal injury or whose rights are directly affected can approach the court. Traditionally, courts have followed a restrictive approach, allowing only aggrieved persons to challenge administrative or constitutional actions.
In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) (First Judges Case), the Supreme Court expanded the concept of locus standi in matters of public interest, allowing advocates to challenge judicial appointments where constitutional values are at stake. The Court recognized that judicial independence is a matter of public importance.
However, in later cases such as Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) and In Re Presidential Reference (1998), the Court clarified that while judicial appointments can be subject to limited judicial review, such review is confined to violations of constitutional procedure, not mere dissatisfaction or speculative allegations.
Thus, an advocate may have locus standi only if the petition raises genuine constitutional issues affecting judicial independence, and not personal or professional grievances.
Possible Judgement
The court is likely to hold that an advocate does not automatically possess locus standi to challenge judicial appointments merely by virtue of being a member of the Bar. However, if the petition discloses serious violations of constitutional provisions or threats to judicial independence, the court may entertain it in public interest. In the absence of concrete constitutional violations, the petition would be dismissed as not maintainable. Therefore, locus standi exists only in exceptional circumstances involving public interest and constitutional breach.
About lawgnan
Administrative Law questions on locus standi, judicial review, and constitutional appointments are frequently asked in LLB and judiciary exams. Understanding who can approach the court and when helps students answer complex problem questions effectively. For more exam-ready Administrative Law notes, landmark case analyses, writ jurisdiction problems, and simplified constitutional concepts, visit lawgana.in. LawGana is crafted exclusively for Indian law students preparing for LLB, judiciary, and competitive examinations. Follow lawgana.in to master Administrative Law with clarity, structure, and confidence.
