T DEEN DAYAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order is being passed at the stage of admission.

(2.) The petitioner, (Party-in-person), has filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of Quo Warranto restraining the 6th respondent (Justice K. Jayachandra Reddi), the 8th respondent (Justice Yogeshwar Dayal) from being Judges of the Supreme Court of India and also the 9th respondent (Justice Subhash Chaganlal Pratap) from being the Chief Justice of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. A consequential direction has also been sought for the issue of a direction to appoint the 5th respondent (Justice Raghuvir former Chief Justice of Assam) and the 7th respondent (Justice G. Ramanujulu Naidu senior-most Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court as Judges of the Supreme Court of India.

(3.) It is firstly contended that the 8th respondent should not have been appointed to the Supreme Court inasmuch as his tenure as Judge and Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court cannot be counted for purposes of Art. 124(3)(a) of the Constitution of India. It is stated that Delhi High Court being a High Court for the Union Territory of Delhi is not a High Court for a 'State' as per Art. 214 and that the said High Court is also not a Court of record within Art, 215 -- and that if the tenure of the 8th respondent in the Delhi High Court is excluded, the tenure in Andhra Pradesh High Court falls short of the required period of five years and therefore the appointment to the Supreme Court is bad. Reference in this connection is made to the provisions of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966.