Appointment challenge dismissed, judiciary integrity upheld in quo warranto writ petition.

The Court dismissed the writ petition seeking a writ of quo warranto to quash the appointment of respondent No. 3 as a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. It found no deliberate suppression of material facts by respondent No. 3 regarding a pending criminal case and upheld the validity of the consultation process for the appointment. The Court concluded that the writ petition lacked merit and bona fides, ordering the petitioners to pay costs and emphasizing the importance of safeguarding the judiciary from unwarranted attacks to maintain institutional integrity.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition seeking a writ of quo warranto.
2. Alleged suppression of material facts by respondent No. 3.
3. Validity of the consultation process for the appointment of respondent No. 3.
4. Impact of the pending criminal case on the appointment of respondent No. 3.
5. Allegations of malafide intent behind filing the writ petition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of quo warranto to quash the appointment of respondent No. 3 as a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and a writ of mandamus to cancel his enrolment as an advocate. The Attorney General argued that the writ petition was not maintainable, asserting that the removal of a judge could only be achieved through an impeachment motion passed by Parliament as per Articles 124(4) and 217 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that judicial review is permissible only on grounds of "lack of eligibility" or "lack of effective consultation," as established in the Mahesh Chandra Gupta case.

2. Alleged Suppression of Material Facts:
The petitioners contended that respondent No. 3 had concealed the fact of a pending criminal case during his enrolment as an advocate and his appointment as a judge. The Court examined the criminal case records and concluded that respondent No. 3 was unaware of the pending case, as there was no evidence of summons being served or any serious attempt to secure his presence in court. The Court found no deliberate suppression of material facts by respondent No. 3.

3. Validity of the Consultation Process:
The Court evaluated whether the consultation process for appointing respondent No. 3 was flawed due to the non-consideration of the pending criminal case. It was noted that none of the members of the High Court or Supreme Court Collegia, nor the State or Central Government, were aware of the pending case. The Court held that the consultative process could not be faulted for not considering an unknown fact, as it would impose an impossible burden on the Constitutional Authorities and introduce uncertainty in judicial appointments.

4. Impact of the Pending Criminal Case:
The petitioners argued that the appointment of respondent No. 3 was vitiated due to the pending criminal case. The Court distinguished this case from the CVC case, where the High-Powered Committee was aware of the pending criminal case against the appointee. In contrast, the pending case against respondent No. 3 was not known to anyone involved in the consultative process. The Court concluded that the unknown pending case did not vitiate the consultation process or the appointment of respondent No. 3.

5. Allegations of Malafide Intent:
The Court observed that the writ petition appeared to be a ruse to malign respondent No. 3, originating from a news report based on incorrect facts. The petitioners, being competent and experienced counsel, should have objectively examined the criminal case records and reached the same conclusion as the Court. The Court found the writ petition lacking in bona fides and aimed at unjustly inflicting injury on respondent No. 3.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding it without merit and lacking in bona fides. The petitioners were ordered to pay costs of Rs. 50,000 each, to be deposited in a fund for the welfare of the employees of the Andhra Pradesh High Court within four weeks. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting the judiciary from uncalled-for attacks while upholding institutional integrity.

---