Can’t ask collegium to rethink decision while applying judicial review: SC

Subject: Polity

Section: Judiciary

Concept:

Supreme Court said on Friday while holding that it cannot quash the recommendation or call upon its collegium to reconsider its decision on appointment of judges while exercising power of judicial review.
The apex court, which had on February 7 refused to entertain two petitions seeking to restrain Lekshmana Chandra Victoria Gowri from taking oath as an additional judge of the Madras High Court, on Friday gave the reasons for dismissing the pleas.
The court said the question whether Ms. Gowri was “fit” to be a judge was outside the ambit of judicial review.
The question whether a person is fit to be appointed as a judge essentially involves the aspect of suitability and stands excluded from the purview of judicial review, it noted.

Question of Eligibility and Suitability

The Bench distinguished between ‘suitability’ and ‘eligibility’ of a candidate zeroed in for High Court judgeship.
Eligibility was based on “objective factors” given in Article 217 (2) of the Constitution like citizenship and 10 years ‘experience as a judicial officer or a lawyer in a High Court.
Suitability of a candidate was the domain of the Collegium as it involved a procedure “designed to test the fitness of a person, including her character, integrity, competence and knowledge”.
This aspect of suitability and stands excluded from the purview of judicial review.

Judicial Review:

It is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.
In other words, judicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached.

Concepts of Law:

Procedure Established by Law: It means that a law enacted by the legislature or the concerned body is valid only if the correct procedure has been followed to the letter.
Due Process of Law: It is a doctrine that not only checks if there is a law to deprive the life and personal liberty of a person but also ensures that the law is made fair and just.
India follows Procedure Established by Law.
It is the power exerted by the courts of a country to examine the actions of the legislatures, executive and administrative arms of government and to ensure that such actions conform to the provisions of the nation’s Constitution.
Judicial review has two important functions, like, of legitimizing government action and the protection of constitution against any undue encroachment by the government.
Judicial review is considered a basic structure of the constitution (Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain Case 1975).
Judicial review is also called the interpretational and observer roles of the Indian judiciary.
Suo Moto cases and the Public Interest Litigation (PIL), with the discontinuation of the principle of Locus Standi, have allowed the judiciary to intervene in many public issues, even when there is no complaint from the aggrieved party.

Types of Judicial Review:

Reviews of Legislative Actions: This review implies the power to ensure that laws passed by the legislature are in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution.
Review of Administrative Actions: This is a tool for enforcing constitutional discipline over administrative agencies while exercising their powers.
Review of Judicial Decisions: This review is used to correct or make any change in previous decisions by the judiciary itself.