Case Summary: K. Ashok Reddy vs The Government of India & Harikesh Singh (1994)
(1994) 02 SC CK 0070
In The Supreme Court Of India
Case No: Civil Appeal No. 140 of 1994
K. Ashok Reddy - APPELLANT
Vs
The Government of India, Harikesh Singh (H.K. Singh) - RESPONDENT
Date of Decision: 07-02-1994
Name of the Court
The Supreme Court of India
Citations
AIR 1994 SC 1207; (1994) 1 JT 401; (1994) 1 SCALE 377; (1994) 2 SCC 303; (1994) 1 SCR 662; (1994) 2 UJ 61; (1994) 1 UPLBEC 434; (1994) 1 UPLBEC 424
[Judgment Source]
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=291568
Facts of the Case
The case arises as a sequel to the nine-Judge Bench decision in the 'Judges Case-II' regarding the transfer of High Court judges under Article 222 of the Constitution of India. K. Ashok Reddy filed a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the validity of transferring judges between High Courts, citing arbitrariness and erosion of judicial independence. The High Court dismissed the petition, leading to the present appeal. A connected writ petition from the Allahabad High Court, raising similar issues, was also transferred to the Supreme Court.
Law Points Raised
1. Whether the transfer of High Court judges under Article 222 is constitutionally valid.
2. Whether the decision in Judges Case-II eliminates judicial review over such transfers.
3. Whether absence of specific guidelines in Article 222 renders it inoperative.
4. Whether transfers can be arbitrary and punitive in nature, affecting judicial independence.
Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 222.
Judgements Referred
1. Judges Case-II (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs Union of India)
2. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
3. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India
Obiter Dicta
The Court noted that Article 222's transfer power exists to promote better administration of justice and is not punitive. The absence of explicit guidelines was intentional, with the expectation that constitutional authorities would develop conventions. Plurality in decision-making and the Chief Justice of India's determinative opinion serve as safeguards against arbitrariness.
Ratio Decidendi
Transfers under Article 222 must be made only in public interest, primarily for better administration of justice. Consent of the judge is not required for transfer. The Chief Justice of India’s opinion is determinative, and such decisions are not justiciable except on limited grounds such as mala fides.
Final Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the issues raised were already settled in Judges Case-II. It upheld the validity of transfers under Article 222, subject to the safeguards and conventions laid down earlier.
Relevant Paragraph Numbers
Paras 468, 469, 470, 472-475, 477, 479.
Summary
This case reaffirmed the principles established in Judges Case-II, clarifying that Article 222 empowers the transfer of High Court judges without their consent, provided such transfers are in public interest. The Chief Justice of India’s opinion, formed through a consultative process, is determinative, and the scope for judicial review is minimal.
[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=291568