Madras HC: Scope of Judicial Review under Article 226 Limited to Test only the Correctness of the Decision-Making Process and not the Decision Itself

Must Read

Writ Petition for Compensation Accepted by Calcutta High Court 

Introduction The Petitioner Purna Ch. Biswas filed a Writ Petition with the complaint that their claims for a higher quantum...

No Members Could Be Disqualified Without Authorisation by Political Party: Gujarat High Court

Excerpt The dispute application no.7 of 2020 filed by respondent no.2 before designated authority. Thereafter the designated authority order dated...

Delhi High Court Directs Delhi Jal Board To Make Supply of Potable Drinking Water

The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Delhi Sainik Cooperation Housing Ltd. v. Union of India &...

Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Security To BJP Leader Alleged for Not Supporting Farmers Protest

The Order had come in the form of a Writ Petition filed by Tikshan Sood under Article 226 of...

Lahore High Court Outlaws Two-Finger Virginity Test

The Lahore High Court in Pakistan has outlawed the use and conduct of virginity tests, namely, the use of...

London Court Rejects Assange’s Extradition – What Happens Now? 

Earlier last week, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, sitting in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court denied the Government of the U.S.A.'s...

Follow us

A writ petition was filed before the Madras High Court to quash the proceedings undertaken by the State of Tamil Nadu and the Registrar General, Madras High Court and reinstate the petitioner as Chief Judicial Magistrate since he was, allegedly, wrongfully terminated and by the order passed by the respondents compulsorily made to retire.

Facts of the case

The First-Class Judicial Magistrate was informed about some adverse remarks on his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) holding his reputation as to honesty, integrity and impartiality as unsatisfactory and remarked to avoid close contact with advocates. Upon the representation of this matter to the Madras High Court itself, the said review and remarks were reviewed and removed. While so, he came to know through an article published in “Times of India” that he had been sent out of service at the age of 50 years for misconduct pursuant to a resolution passed by the court. Upon receiving the news, he filed another representation before the court and after the due procedure, it was held that his service was to be discontinued and the State Government subsequently ordered the directions. The Court also ordered the charge to be handed over to the Principal Sub-Judge immediately, which along with the earlier order were challenged under this petition.

Arguments before the Court

The counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner had been in service for over 18 years with no complaints or allegiance against him, and that the ingredients for compulsory retirement were absent in this case according to Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules as the words “compulsory retirement”, “is of the opinion” and “in public interest”, are not found, which is the basic requirement to invoke such a measure. Further, the counsel for the petitioner contended that the government order retiring the petitioner was passed only based on a letter by the Court and that subjective satisfaction of the Government was not fulfilled. Also, that the petitioner didn’t have a poor performance since the remarks against him were quashed upon his merit.

The counsel for the respondents argued that even though all the adverse remarks in the petitioner’s ACR were expunged, it cannot be ignored that the performance of the petitioner during a majority of the period under question, 2010-2017 was only average and during which for a considerable amount of time, he did not fulfil essential norms completely. The counsel also contended that the decision so questioned was arrived at after due consideration and review of the documents on record.

Decision of the Court

The court, on perusal of material records, found that the ACR, work is done statement, etc. of the petitioner was circulated to the judges comprising the Full Court and the decision was taken by majority voting and that it could not be said that the decision taken was not based on any materials. The court also observed that the Full Court had laid its hand in exercising its jurisdiction under Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules.56(2) and also Article 235 of the Constitution of India.

The Court found itself conscious of the fact that the scope of Judicial review in the exercise of the power conferred under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, is limited to test only the correctness or otherwise of adherence of the decision-making process and not the decision of the respondents. While exercising this jurisdiction, the court can only ensure as to whether the procedural formalities preceding the order of compulsory retirement have been adhered to in the touchstone of principles of natural justice. In other words, the conclusion arrived at by the respondents to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service could thus, not be interfered with by this Court, unless such conclusion is based on no evidence or irrelevant material, which was held otherwise.

[googlepdf url=”https://libertatem.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/MHC-R.Naraja-vs-State-of-Tamil-Nadu.pdf” download=”Download Judgement PDF” width=”100%” height=”900″]


Contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now. You can also join our Team of Courtroom and regularly contribute cases like the above one.

For more Courtroom Updates, check out our Courtroom Page

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Writ Petition for Compensation Accepted by Calcutta High Court 

Introduction The Petitioner Purna Ch. Biswas filed a Writ Petition with the complaint that their claims for a higher quantum of compensation have not yet...

No Members Could Be Disqualified Without Authorisation by Political Party: Gujarat High Court

Excerpt The dispute application no.7 of 2020 filed by respondent no.2 before designated authority. Thereafter the designated authority order dated 28.10.2020 disqualified the petitioner and...

Delhi High Court Directs Delhi Jal Board To Make Supply of Potable Drinking Water

The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Delhi Sainik Cooperation Housing Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors held that right to...

Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Security To BJP Leader Alleged for Not Supporting Farmers Protest

The Order had come in the form of a Writ Petition filed by Tikshan Sood under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition before...

Lahore High Court Outlaws Two-Finger Virginity Test

The Lahore High Court in Pakistan has outlawed the use and conduct of virginity tests, namely, the use of the “two-finger” virginity test and...

London Court Rejects Assange’s Extradition – What Happens Now? 

Earlier last week, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, sitting in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court denied the Government of the U.S.A.'s request to the U.K. to...

Calcutta High Court Decides in Favor of Contractor as He Accidentally Pays an Excessively High Amount

Introduction The present writ petition has been filed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to revoke the Petitioner’s offer as...

Petition Filed in Delhi High Court Challenging the New Privacy Policy of WhatsApp

A petition has been raised before the Delhi High Court challenging the updated privacy policy of the instant messaging app, WhatsApp. It is accused of looking into the virtual activities of the users,

Bombay High Court Says Pleas Against the Rejection of Nomination Before the Polls Is Not Maintainable

Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that a candidate cannot challenge his nomination by filing a writ petition before a court prior to the polls after his nominations have already been rejected by the Returning Officer (RO) for the Panchayat elections of January 15.

Bombay HC: It Will Be Difficult if Civic Bodies Don’t Take Action on Illegal Constructions

The Bombay High Court said on Wednesday that if the Municipal Corporations do not take action on the illegal constructions, things will become very difficult. This observation was made by a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Girish Kulkarni while hearing a PIL after the Bhiwandi building collapse on September 21st, 2020 which led to the death of 39 lives. Mumbai Thane, Ulhasnagar, Kalyan-Dombivli, Vasai-Virar, Navi Mumbai, and Bhiwandi-Nizampur corporations were filed as respondents.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -