Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

ANAND KUMAR versus SRI KATTALI BHASKARAN & ORS.

Decided
19 January 1988
Judges listed
A.P. SEN, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, L.M. SHARMA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1988] 2 S.C.R. 728 · 1988 INSC 15

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

In response to the queries made by this Court by its Order dated January 8, 1988 Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General has furnished the relevant information as under:

p. 729, margin E

(1) In the matter of the age of Shri Justice K. Bhaskaran, Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the advice and cornments of the Chief Justice of India were sought in terms of Articles 217(3) of the Constitution of India. The files containing all the relevant papers were referred to the Chief Justice of

p. 729, margin E

India on 28th September, 1987. (2) The Chief Justice of India on 29th December, 1987 desired to have an opinion as to the effect of the judgment pronounced by the Andhra Pradesh High Court concerning the matter of the age of the Chief Justice Bhaskaran. The opinion was made available to the Chief Justice of India on 6th Jarmary, 1988. The Chief Justice of India :on llth January, 1988 indicated further course of action in the matter. The file has been resubmitted to · the Chief Justice of India on J6th January, 1~·: '- · i: ·further

pp. 729–730, margin F

advice. : ., (3) A view in the matter will be taken by the President of ·India • after the advice of the Chief Justice oflndia is made available.

p. 730

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,. (1971] 3 SCR at 503 & 504, 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 Article 217(3) of the Constitution is beyond the reach of the Council of Ministers under Article 74 of the Constitution.

p. 730

J.C. Shah, C.J., speaking for the Constitution Bench has laid down the law in these words: · , "It is necessary to observe that the President in whose name all executive functions of the Union are performed is by Art. 217(3) invested with judicial power of great significance which has bearing on the independence of the Judges of the Higher Courts. The President is by Art. 74 of the Constitution the Constitutional head who acts on the advice of the Council of

p. 730, margin D

Ministers. . .......... " '

p. 730, margin E

The question as to the age of Shri K. Bhaskaran, the Chief Justice -of the Andhfa Pradesh High Court must, therefore, be decided by the President of India on the· advice of the Chief Justice of India as en joined by Article 217(3) of the Constitution in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in Jyoti Prakash Mitter's, case.

p. 730, margin E

The High Court, ii) our considered opinion, should have thrown out the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution at the very threshold

p. 730, margin G

because the President of India was seized with the question under Article . 217(3) of the Constitution. Indeed, it appears from the judgment of the High Court that when the learned counsel for the Union of India informed the Court that the President of India is seized with the question, the counsel for the appellant conceded that the writ of quo warranto is not maintainable.

pp. 730–731, margin G

The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed. G.N. Petitions dismissed .

p. 731, margin A