Opinion formulated by Chief Justice not subjected to Judicial Review

Adversity contiguous to the appoint of an additional judge of a High Court to any tribunal or commission has been fixed by Bombay High Court recently in Mr. V.P. Patil vs Mr. Justice N.D. Deshpande & Ors, where an issue in relation to the appointment of an additional judge as Presiding officer of the Bombay University and College Tribunal was present. One important aspect can be found not in this particular case but in the case which has been discussed by the Bombay High Court when it decreed its decision. High Court discussed N.Kannadasan Vs. Ajoy Khose & Ors decided by the Supreme Court in the year which held that “what is not the subject matter of judicial review is the opinion of the Chief Justice touching upon the merit of the decision but the decision making process is subject to judicial review”

Argument formulated by the petitioner stated that since respondent 1 was not a judge of Bombay High Court, he cannot be appoint to the post as mentioned above because the post requires a person to be qualified as a High Court judge before being appointed to the post. It was further alleged by the petitioner that since two junior judges had been appointed as permanent judge of the Court and not him, it was clear according to him that Chief Justice didn’t consider him appropriate for the post. Section 58 (4) (a) of the Maharashtra University Act, 1994 a person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Presiding Officer of a Tribunal unless he is or has been a judge of the High Court. It was stated by the petitioner that since the judge, according to the Supreme Court collegium, was not eligible for the post of High Court judge at Bombay, his appoint as the presiding officer shall stand void and this petition should be decreed accordingly.

While decreeing, court was of the opinion that what can be challenged is the decision making process would some under the ambit of judicial review and not the opinion which he speaks out while appointment of a judge. Moreover, it has been stated by the High Court that the case referred by the appellant had no relevance in the present case because of a simple reason that judge in that case was charged with probity unlike this case, where judge has not been charged with probity in this particular case. Chief Justice was aware of his credentials which cannot be disputed, and this was the reason why he appointed him as an additional judge of Bombay High Court. In the former case, Chief Justice was more or less not aware of the authenticity of his credentials, and also of the allegations put forward by the petitioner. As long as it is the opinion of the Chief justice, it cannot be disputed in any court of law because of the limitation of judicial review.