Appointment of judge challenged

Advocate M. Radhakrishnan contended in his public interest litigation that the appointment of Justice Subramonium Prasad as an Additional Judge of the High Court with effect from 4 June, 2018, is null and void as he is not qualified for appointment as a Judge of High Court of Judicature at Madras under Article 217 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India.

Quoting a Supreme Court judgment offered by a nine-member bench, he said the Chief Justice of India and the two senior most puisne Judges of the Supreme Court should form an opinion about a person to be recommended for appointment to a High Court bearing in mind that the opinion of the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court would be entitled to the greatest weight.

But since the said Judge has never practiced as an advocate in the High Court of Judicature at Madras or its subordinate Courts or tribunals, the Collegium of High Court of Judicature at Madras had no occasion either to assess the performance of the said Judge as an advocate or to appreciate his potentiality to be a Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Radhakrishnan submitted.