Consider the following statements regarding District Judges :
(a) The appointment of District Judge is made by Chief Justice of High Court.
(b) The Chief Minister has the authority to transfer the Dis

Question

Consider the following statements regarding District Judges :
(a) The appointment of District Judge is made by Chief Justice of High Court.
(b) The Chief Minister has the authority to transfer the District Judge.
Which of the statement/s given above is/are correct ?

UnlockIAS · Accepted Answer

Correct — option (4), Neither (a) nor (b). The question prints only two statements, (a) and (b), and both of them are wrong, which is why the option denying both is the answer. Take statement (a) first. Article 233(1) of the Constitution provides that appointments of persons to be district judges in a State, and their posting and promotion, shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to that State. The appointing authority is therefore the Governor, not the Chief Justice of the High Court. The High Court's role is real and substantial — the Governor must consult it, and for a candidate coming from the Bar rather than from the judicial service Article 233(2) requires that the High Court recommend him, besides requiring at least seven years' practice as an advocate or pleader — but consultation and recommendation are not appointment. The statement puts the whole power in the hands of an authority that in fact holds only a part of it. Statement (b) fails even more plainly. No provision of the Constitution gives the Chief Minister any authority over a district judge, and the design of Chapter VI of Part VI is precisely to keep the political executive out of the working life of the subordinate judiciary. Article 235 vests in the High Court the control over district courts and the courts subordinate to them, including the posting, promotion and grant of leave of members of the judicial service holding posts inferior to that of district judge, and the courts have read that control as the guarantee of the independence of the subordinate judiciary. Where the executive does appear, at the stage of appointment under Article 233 and of the framing of rules under Article 234, it appears as the Governor acting on the advice of the council of ministers as a whole and after consulting the High Court and, for the lower judicial service, the State Public Service Commission — never as an individual minister exercising a personal power to move a judge. So statement (a) names the wrong authority for a real power and statement (b) invents a power that does not exist. The option to select is the one that rejects both. It is worth noting the shape of the question, because it recurs: this is one of the seven questions in this paper that print only two statements, and a two-statement stem always carries an option denying both, which is a genuine answer and not a formality.

Why the other options are wrong — (a) This accepts statement (a), that a district judge is appointed by the Chief Justice of the High Court. The Constitution says otherwise: under Article 233(1) the appointment, posting and promotion of district judges are made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court. The distinction between the appointing authority and the consulted authority matters, and it is tested repeatedly. It is easy to see why the statement attracts candidates — the High Court's opinion carries decisive weight in practice, and for direct recruits from the Bar the High Court's recommendation is a constitutional precondition — but the formal act of appointment is the Governor's. Note also that the statement names the Chief Justice personally, whereas Article 233 speaks of the High Court as an institution; consultation is with the court, not with an individual judge, which is a second reason the statement is inaccurate.  (b) This accepts statement (b), that the Chief Minister may transfer a district judge. No such authority exists anywhere in the Constitution. The control over district courts and the courts subordinate to them is vested by Article 235 in the High Court, and that control is the mechanism by which the independence of the subordinate judiciary is secured; the executive's role is confined to the appointment stage under Article 233 and the rule-making stage under Article 234, and even there it is the Governor who acts, after consulting the High Court and, for the lower judicial service, the State Public Service Commission. A Chief Minister with power to move a judge from one station to another would be able to reward and punish judges deciding cases involving his own government, which is exactly the mischief the constitutional scheme was designed to prevent, and Article 50 among the Directive Principles states the underlying policy of separating the judiciary from the executive.  (c) This accepts both statements, and both are wrong, so it compounds the two errors rather than correcting either. It is worth pausing on why a candidate might be drawn to it. Both statements sound administratively plausible: somebody must appoint district judges and somebody must move them between stations, and the two names offered — the Chief Justice of the High Court and the Chief Minister — are the senior figures of the judiciary and of the executive in a State. The constitutional answer is that these two functions are deliberately split in an unexpected way. Appointment is an executive act performed by the Governor but conditioned on consulting the court, while control over the working of the district courts, including postings and transfers within the subordinate judiciary, belongs to the High Court and not to the executive at all. Neither function sits where this option places it.

Concept: The subordinate judiciary is governed by Chapter VI of Part VI of the Constitution, Articles 233 to 237. Article 233 provides that appointments of persons to be district judges, and their posting and promotion, are made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court; a person not already in the service of the Union or the State is eligible only if he has been an advocate or pleader for at least seven years and is recommended by the High Court for appointment. Article 234 deals with recruitment to the judicial service below the rank of district judge, which is made by the Governor in accordance with rules framed after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and with the High Court. Article 235 vests in the High Court the control over district courts and courts subordinate to them, including the posting and promotion of, and the grant of leave to, members of the judicial service holding posts inferior to that of district judge — the provision on which the independence of the subordinate judiciary rests. Article 236 defines 'district judge' widely, to include the judge of a city civil court, an additional district judge, a joint district judge, an assistant district judge, the chief judge of a small cause court, a sessions judge, an additional sessions judge and an assistant sessions judge. Article 237 allows the Governor to extend these provisions to any class of magistrates. Behind the whole chapter stands Article 50, a Directive Principle requiring the State to take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services. Proposals for an All India Judicial Service under Article 312, which would require a resolution of the Rajya Sabha supported by a special majority, have been discussed for decades without being carried into effect.

State PCS 2021 Q74 — Polity & Governance PYQ with Answer

State PCS 2021 Q74 — Polity & Governance PYQ with Answer