S.P. GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA, 30th DECEMEBER, 1981 Ambuja Srivastava Legal Article Wed, Aug 05, 2020, at ,09:07 AM CASE STUDY- S.P. GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA, 30th DECEMBER, 1981 AIR 1982 SC 149, 1981 Supp (1) | SCC 87, 1982 2 SCR 365 RELEVANT LAWS- Constitution, Articles 19(1) (a) and 74(2); Evidence Act, Sections 123 and 162 (Constitution, Other Law) HISTORY OF THE "THREE JUDGES CASE"- The following are three cases which constitute the ‘Three Judges Case’: S. P. Gupta v. Union of India - 1982 (also known as the Court of Appeal) Supreme Court Advocates - on Record Association v. Union of India - 1993 In Re Special Reference 1 of 1998 The case, S.P. Gupta v. Union of India is the first of the ‘Three Judges Case’ which established precedence for the collegiums system of Supreme Courts and High Courts of India. In a continuation of three separate cases brought in the Indian Supreme court, the court introduced a principle of independent jurisdiction which means that no other organ of state - including the legislature and the executive - will say when the judges are elected. The court then introduced a system of collegium, which came into effect since the judgment in the Second Judge Case in 1993. There is no mention of the collegium in the original Indian Constitution or subsequent amendments. Although the introduction of the collegium program was viewed as controversial by law students and legal administrators outside India, Parliament and the executive, both did nothing to restore it. The Third Judicial Tribunal of 1998 is not a case but an opinion presented by the Supreme Court of India in response to a legal question about the collegium system, raised by then Indian President KR Narayanan, in July 1998 under his constitutional power. In addition, in January 2013, the court dismissed as unresolved a civil dispute, a civil claim filed by NGO Suraz India Trust that sought to challenge the collective bargaining scheme. In July 2013, Indian Chief Justice P. Sathasivam spoke negatively of any efforts to reform the collegium system. On September 5, 2013, the Rajya Sabha Bill passed the Constitution (120th Amendment), 2013, amending Articles 124 (2) and 217 (1) of the Indian Constitution, 1950 and establishes the National Commission on Employment of Representatives. The President will appoint judges to the top judges. This amendment was overturned by the Supreme Court unconstitutional on October 16, 2015. The constitutional bench of Justices Madan Lokur, J. S. Khehar, Adarsh Kumar Goel and Kurian Joseph declared 99th Act as unconstitutional while Justice Chelameswar supported it. CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY- The SC has supported the legal rigour of the current collegix system, and the Indian Constitution has the following two Articles related to this issue: Section 124 (2): "All judges of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President with a warrant under his or her hand and seal after consultation with the Justices of the Supreme Court and the High Courts in the State as the President deems fit and should hold office until he is sixty-five years old, which in Indian India is always discussed." Article 217: Every judge of the High Court shall be appointed by the President with a warrant under his hand and sign it after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State and, in the case of a judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High Court. CASE SUMMARY- The Supreme Court of India rejected the government's claim of protection against disclosure and approached the Union of India to produce the requested documents. The petitioners demanded the disclosure of correspondence between the Chief Justice of Delhi, the Minister of Justice, and the Chief Justice of India on the transfer and appointment of judges. The court held that a specific document on state matters does not require disclosure if its disclosure is in conflict with the public interest and in this case the appointment and appeal of judges is a public duty. The decision indicates a binding or convincing layer within its control. The Supreme Court of India has recognized the public right of information as being included in the rights to freedom of speech and expression. It also lowers the protection of disclosure of paid government documents. FACTS- The various courts that have been referred to the Supreme Court make it "a very important constitutional issue affecting judicial independence," with regard to the appointment of judges. The relevant part of the case concerns the disclosure of certain documents between the Minister of Justice, the Chief Justice of Delhi and the Chief Justice of India, as well as the relevant notes made in connection with the non-election of the judge over time and the Appeal of the High Court Judge. The appellants, together with one of the judges in question, sought disclosure of these documents. The government argued that the documents had the right to be disclosed for two reasons: first, as advice from the Ministerial Council on the President, subject to Section 74 (2) of the Constitution"; and secondly, that their disclosure could be in the public interest, in terms of Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 123 reads:" No person is entitled to give evidence from unpublished official records relating to any matters of the State, without the consent of the relevant head of department, who shall grant or withhold such permission, thinks it necessary. The validity of any dispute will be decided by the court.” DECISION- In this case, the Supreme Court of India rejected the government's claim for safeguarding from disclosure and ordered the Union of India to disclose the documents contained in the book. An open and effective democracy requires accountability and access to information by the public about government performance. Exposure to the public view of an open government will ensure clean and healthy governance and is a powerful check against oppression, corruption and abuse of power. The idea of an open government is a direct departure from the right to know, which is guaranteed by the right to freedom of expression guaranteed under Section 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, disclosure of information regarding government operations should be separate law and secrecy, defined only when there is a strict public interest requirement. With regard to the dispute involving Article 74 (2), the Court held that while the advice of the Ministerial Council to the President would be protected from judicial review, the communication in this case between the Minister of Justice, the Chief Justice of Delhi, and the Chief Justice of India was not protected merely because it was mentioned in counsel. There are only two reasons on the basis of which the decision of the Local Government in respect of appointment and transfer can be disputed: inappropriate reasons. The communication in question will be for the purpose of the two purposes, which require disclosure. The public interest rests on the basis of the claim for protection under the Evidence Act. Under these considerations, the Court must decide whether the disclosure of a particular document would be in conflict with the public interest. It must balance the public's interest in the proper administration of justice through disclosure and public interest seeking transparency, and decide whether the document should be protected. Communication, in this case, was found to be inappropriate. It is allocated with the transfer and appointment of judges, which is a matter of public interest. The shock of a vague or ruthless society or political criticism was not enough to justify the reasons for protecting literature. After reviewing the document, the Court ruled that the Central Government's directive against non-appointment was valid.