No Difference in Judicial Powers, Duties of Additional and Permanent HC Judges: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently noted that there is no difference between the judges appointed under section 217 of the Constitution of India and the judges appointed under section 224, i.e. additional judges or acting judges with respect to the judicial powers and duties of the judges of the High Court. .

The Court explained that the only distinction between additional and permanent Supreme Court justices is their term of office.

An additional or proxy judge shall hold office in accordance with the provisions of Article 224, while other judges shall continue in office until they reach the age of 62.

Further, a panel of Judge Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi highlighted the lack of a separate section for judges appointed under Article 224.

“Judges appointed under section 224 of the Constitution of India also take an oath to duly and honestly discharge the duties of their office and by virtue of their ability, knowledge and judgment without fear of favoritism, affection or bad faith as the judge appointed under section 217,” the court noted.

Furthermore, the Court noted that all judges are required to perform the judicial work assigned to them and to exercise their jurisdiction accordingly, regardless of the constitutional provision under which they are appointed.

The observations were made in a request for review filed against the division’s decision in a special appeal.

The plaintiff had alleged that the contested judgment had been rendered in violation of the procedure laid down in Chapter VII, Rule 1 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 and, therefore, is not tenable at law.

It was also filed that the special appeal was heard by a judicial panel, consisting of two judges, one of whom was appointed under Article 217, while the other judge was appointed under Article 224, and that, therefore, the composition of the court was against the spirit of the Constitution.

With regard to sentencing, the Supreme Court held that there was no violation of the High Court rules.

The Court noted that the substance of the judgment and the results of the appeal were announced in open session and that the detailed judgment was issued later in the Chamber.

It held that although Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules provides that judgment may be pronounced immediately, or at some future date after notice has been given to the parties, it does not confer any substantive right on either side.

“The rule does not provide for any negative consequences for failure to pronounce the entire judgment in open court immediately. From our considered point of view, the above procedural rule is merely evidentiary in nature.”

The Court found the application for review lacking merit, and therefore rejected it.