SP Gupta vs Union of India [First Judges Transfer Case]

The First Judges Transfer Case, also known as S.P. Gupta vs Union of India, was a 1981 Supreme Court case that established the collegium system in India. The case emphasized the executive’s role in judicial appointments.

Case Name: SP Gupta vs Union of India [SP Gupta Case]

Type: Writ Petition Number 274 of 1981

Citation: AIR 1982 SC 149

Petitioner: S.P. Gupta

Respondents: Union of India

Bench: The bench in SP Gupta vs Union of India was comprised of seven judges, with the Honourable Justice Y.V. Chandrachud as the then Chief Justice of India and Justice P.N. Bhagwati later becoming the Chief Justice of the country in 1985. The other judges on the bench were:

• Justice P.N. Bhagwati
• Justice A.C. Gupta
• Justice S.M. Fazal Ali
• Justice V.D. Tulzapurkar
• Justice D.A. Desai
• Justice R.S. Pathak
• Justice F.S. Venkataramaiah

Background of SP Gupta vs Union of India

SP Gupta vs Union of India marks a significant milestone within the context of the ‘Three Judges Cases,’ which is now commonly referred to as the ‘Four Judges Case’ since the year 2015. These cases played a pivotal role in the establishment of a collegium system for the appointment of judges within the Supreme Court and High Courts.

Through these cases, the Court set a crucial precedent, emphasising the principle of independent jurisdiction. This principle ensures that the judiciary is the sole authority responsible for the appointment of judges, with no interference from any other branch of the government.

The case of SP Gupta v Union of India in 1981, often referred to as the ‘Judges’ Transfer Case,’ is the foundation of the collegium system. Subsequently, in 1993, a second case solidified the implementation of this system across the nation and in 1998, a third case addressed and clarified any existing loopholes within the system. In the fourth case in 2015, the Court took a decisive step by abolishing the National Judicial Appointment Commission, which had previously assisted the President in the selection of judges for both the Supreme Court and High Courts.

S.P. Gupta, a prominent figure in the legal profession, had a long-standing career as a pleader in the Allahabad High Court since 1951. He also served as the Advocate General for the State of Uttar Pradesh on two occasions during his distinguished tenure. His pivotal role in this case played a vital part in shaping the establishment of the collegium system in our country for the appointment of judges.

Brief Facts of SP Gupta vs Union of India

In the year 1981, a multitude of writ petitions were initiated by various legal practitioners across different high courts. The common thread in all these petitions was a challenge to a government order pertaining to the non-appointment of two judges and their subsequent transfer. This legal saga began with the filing of the initial petition in the Bombay High Court, followed by a second petition lodged in the Delhi High Court. These petitions not only contested the government’s order but also raised constitutional concerns regarding the procedure employed for appointing judges to higher courts.

The heart of the matter in SP Gupta vs Union of India revolved around the appointment of three additional judges to the Supreme Court for a limited term, a move perceived as inconsistent with the provisions outlined in Article 224 of the Constitution. The petitions further sought the conversion of these temporary judicial positions into permanent ones, a step seen as crucial for safeguarding the independence of the judiciary.

Among the several petitions, one was submitted by S.P. Gupta, who held the role of an advocate in the Allahabad High Court at the time. His petition specifically addressed the appointment of Justice Murlidhar, Justice A.N. Verma and Justice N.N. Mittal as additional judges in the High Court. An advocate from the Ministry of Law and Justice contested the validity of these petitions, contending that the government’s order and the short-term judicial appointments had not resulted in any legal harm to any party.

Issues Raised

The central concern in SP Gupta vs Union of India revolved around the constitutional validity of the Central Government’s order regarding the non-appointment and short-term transfer of judges in High Courts. Furthermore, the case questioned the disclosure of correspondence between the Minister of Law, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court and the Chief Justice of India. Challenges to the standing (locus standi) of the petitioners were also raised. An equally significant issue pertained to the independence of the judiciary and the procedures governing the appointment of judges in higher courts.

Contentions of the Parties in SP Gupta v Union of India

Arguments Presented by the Petitioners

In their petitions, the petitioners in SP Gupta vs Union of India contended the constitutional validity of the Central Government’s order. They argued that this order indirectly coerced judges into consenting to their appointment as additional judges under the threat of jeopardising their professional permanency. The petitioners also sought the disclosure of communications related to the non-appointment and short-term transfers of judges.

Another argument in SP Gupta v Union of India put forth was that the President had failed in their duty under Article 216 of the Constitution to appoint judges effectively to address the backlog of cases. Consequently, the petitioners called for a writ of mandamus against the President. Additionally, they claimed that the procedure outlined in Article 124 had not been properly followed.

Arguments Presented by the Respondents

The respondents in SP Gupta vs Union of India countered the issue of disclosure by invoking Article 74(2), which asserts that advice sought by the President from members of the Council of Ministers is immune from challenge in court. Moreover, they cited Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which prohibits the use of unpublished documents as evidence in court.

Concerning the publication of documents, the respondents referenced the precedent set in the case of State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh (1961), wherein the Court held that documents pertaining to ‘state affairs’ fall under the discretion of the department head regarding their publication. Furthermore, they argued that the advice provided by the Council of Ministers during meetings is protected from disclosure under Section 123 of the Evidence Act.

Regarding the issue of maintainability in SP Gupta v Union of India, the respondents asserted that the petitions filed by the petitioners should be deemed non-maintainable as they had not suffered any harm. If these petitions were to be pursued, the judges appointed as additional judges should have done so. Thus, they contended that the Court should not entertain these petitions, as the petitioners did not experience any injury or loss as a result of the Central Government’s order.

Judgement of the Court in SP Gupta vs Union of India

Majority Decision – 5:2

In SP Gupta vs Union of India, a majority decision of 5:2 affirmed the validity of not extending the term of an additional judge, specifically, Judge S.N. Kumar. The matter was heard by 7 judge bench of the Supreme Court of India.

Justice Bhagwati proposed the establishment of a collegium to recommend candidate names to the President for appointing judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts.

Conversely, Justice Pathak and Tulzapukar emphasised the importance and supremacy of the Chief Justice of India’s opinion and advice over others. It was unanimously agreed that ‘consultation’ meant comprehensive and effective deliberation, requiring constitutional functionaries to base their decisions on complete and identical facts.

Explanation of the Judgment

The Honourable Supreme Court, in SP Gupta vs Union of India, rejected the respondents’ argument regarding the disclosure of correspondence.

The Court in SP Gupta vs Union of India ruled that disclosure should only be withheld if it negatively impacts public interest and conflicts with public policy. However, if disclosure is necessary for the public’s benefit, it must be promptly executed. The Court emphasised the concept of an open and accountable government, wherein the government is answerable to the people for its actions.

This concept aligns with the right to information protected under the freedom of speech and expression, as outlined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. In a democracy, transparency and accountability are essential and citizens must have access to information. The only exception to this right is when the information pertains to national security or its disclosure would harm the public interest.

Regarding the advantage of advice taken by the respondents under Article 74(2), the Court clarified that the correspondence did not fall under the category of advice as defined in the Article. Labelling the correspondence as advice by the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court did not grant it protection under the Article, especially considering that it contained their opinions, which did not amount to official advice.

Regarding the third claim of the respondents in SP Gupta v Union of India, in which they sought to shield unpublished documents from being treated as evidence under Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court referred to the precedent set in the case of State of UP v. Raj Narain (1975). In that case, the Court upheld the High Court’s decision to treat unpublished documents as admissible evidence, stating that the court has the authority to determine the potential impact of disclosure on public interest.

In this case, there was a lack of proper consultation between the government and the relevant authorities regarding the appointment and transfer of judges. Furthermore, these decisions were not based on relevant grounds. The Court’s objective is to strike a balance between fairness, justice and the public interest. In this context, the appointment and transfer of judges were deemed to be in the public interest, necessitating the disclosure of correspondence.

Other Cases of Four Judges’ Cases

There are three other cases that are covered in the four judges’ cases as referred to after 2015 that helped in establishing a fair procedure for the appointment of judges and establishing a collegium for this purpose.

These are:

• Supreme Court Advocate On Record Association v. Union of India (1993) – Second Judges Case
• Re special reference 1 of 1998 – Third Judges Case
• Supreme Court v. Union of India (2015) – Fourth Judges Case

SP Gupta Case Summary

SP Gupta vs Union of India, also known as the “Judges’ Transfer Case” (1981), was a landmark legal case in India. The main issue revolved around the constitutional validity of the Central Government’s orders regarding the non-extension of an additional judge’s term and their transfer. The majority decision, by a 5:2 ratio, upheld the validity of these actions. Justice Bhagwati recommended the establishment of a collegium to recommend judicial appointments to the President, while Justice Pathak and Tulzapukar emphasized the Chief Justice of India’s opinion in such matters.

The court in SP Gupta case emphasised that ‘consultation’ meant full and effective deliberation and that disclosure of government correspondence should occur unless it negatively affects public interest. This case played a pivotal role in shaping India’s judicial landscape by addressing issues related to judicial appointments, transparency and the accountability of the government to the public.