ANAND KUMAR Vs. KATTAIL BHASKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In response to the queries made by this court by its order dated 8/01/1988 Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General has furnished the relevant information as under:

(2.) In view of the foregoing, it is clear that the President of India in compliance with Article 217 (3 of the Constitution of India has referred the question as to the age of Shri K. Bhaskaran, the chief justice of the Andhra Pradesh High court to the chief justice of India for his opinion. That being so, no writ of mandamus can lie. The President of India as a constitutional functionary has discharged his duties under Article 217 (3 of the Constitution and the decision must rest on the advice of the chief justice of India and not the council of Ministers. As laid down in the Union of India v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter , the matter as to the age of the chief justice or a sitting judge of a High court is a judicial function of the President of India, which has to be discharged in accordance with the special provisions made under Article 217 (3 of the Constitution. Such a question as to the age of the chief justice or a judge under Article217 (3 of the Constitution is beyond the reach of the council of Ministers under Article 74 of the Constitution.

(3.) J. C. Shah, C. J. , speaking for the Constitution bench has laid down the law in these words :