High CourtsDivision Bench(2022) 10 UK CK 0050

Youth Bar Association Of India (Regd.) And Another vs Union Of India And Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 15 October 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vipin Sanghi, CJ · Manoj K. Tiwari, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (PIL) No. 42 Of 2022

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 353 words

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

1.

The present Writ Petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs :-

“a. issue writ in the nature of mandamus, orders or directions to the respondents no. 1, 2 and 4 to immediately take steps to appoint judges in this Hon'ble High Court as per the sanctioned strength in the larger public interest and also for the proper administration of justice;

b. Issue writ, order or direction, in the larger public interest, requesting the respondents no. 1 and 2 to decide the representation dated 04.04.2022 submitted by the Petitioner-YBAI by a well-reasoned and speaking order, limiting to the extent of point no. 2 i.e. filling up of vacancies of the Judges in this Hon'ble High Court as per the sanctioned posts.

c. As an interim measure, the Petitioners are requesting that the Hon'ble Judges of this High Court, who are at the verge of their retirement, may not be relieved subject to their consent until fresh elevation/appointment of Judges in this Hon'ble High Court are done, in the larger public interest and for the better administration of justice.

d. To enlarge the scope of present writ petition and mold the relief/s, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and in the larger public interest.”

2.

It is for the Collegium, consisting of the Chief Justice and the two senior most Judges of this Court, to make the recommendations. There is no reason to assume that the collegium is not mindful of its duty, or that it would not perform its duty, as and when the occasion arises. So far as the direction to consider the raising of the age of retirement of judges is concerned, that is an aspect which falls for consideration of the Parliament. In our view, the directions sought for by the petitioners in the present Writ Petition are not called for.

3.

We, therefore, do not find any merit in this Writ Petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.

4.

In sequel thereto, pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.