CHENNAI, April 14: The issue relating to Justice C Shivappa, who relinquished office following a notification issued by the President of India under Art. 317(3) of the Constitution, took a twist on Tuesday with the first bench of the Madras High Court comprising acting Chief Justice N K Jain and Justice K P Sivasubramanian giving dissenting orders on a public interest litigation challenging the constitutional validity of the Article.While acting Chief Justice Jain dismissed the petition from VOICE (Consumer Care Council), Chennai, as not maintainable, Justice Sivasubramaniam held that the petition is maintainable. ``The judicial discipline requires that it should be for the highest court to go into the question of its validity'', the judge said. He, however, dismissed the petition on merits.
The petition prayed for a declaration that Art 217(3) of the Constitution, as amended by the 15th Constitutional amendment, is unconstitutional.
It contended that the President of India cannot exercise thediscretion under Art 124(2)(A). When once a judge is appointed and the tenure is fixed, he cannot be removed without following the proper procedure of impeachment in Parliament.
Rejecting the contention, acting Chief Justice Jain observed that the President is the only competent authority to determine the age of a High Court judge. In Justice Shivappa's case, the age has been determined by him, which has not been challenged by the aggrieved person himself.
Copyright © 1999 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
Printer-friendly page