Article 217 of the Costitution of India with Case law
Here is a detailed explanation of Article 217 of the Constitution of India along with key case law:
🇮🇳 Article 217 – Appointment and Conditions of the Office of a Judge of a High Court
🔹 Text of Article 217:
(1) Every Judge of a High Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with—
the Chief Justice of India,
the Governor of the State,
and, in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High Court,
and shall hold office until he attains the age of 62 years.
(2) A Judge may be removed from his office only by the President, on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, in the manner provided in Article 124(4).
(3) If any question arises as to the age of a Judge, it shall be decided by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
🧾 Explanation:
✅ Key Points:
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Appointing Authority | President of India |
| Consultation Required | Chief Justice of India, Governor of the State, and Chief Justice of the High Court |
| Retirement Age | 62 years (for High Court Judges) |
| Removal Process | Only by President on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity |
| Age Disputes | Decided by the President in consultation with the CJI |
⚖️ Important Case Laws on Article 217:
🔹 1. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)
Citation: AIR 1982 SC 149
Facts: Known as the First Judges Case
Held:
The Court held that consultation does not mean concurrence.
The Executive had the primacy in appointments.
Later overruled by the Second Judges Case (1993).
🔹 2. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993)
Citation: AIR 1994 SC 268
Known as: Second Judges Case
Held:
Gave primacy to the Chief Justice of India in judicial appointments.
Established the Collegium System.
Article 217(1)'s "consultation" was interpreted to mean effective concurrence of the CJI.
🔹 3. Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India (2009)
Citation: (2009) 8 SCC 273
Held:
The appointment of a High Court Judge can be subject to judicial review.
However, only procedural infirmities or lack of consultation can be reviewed.
Suitability is not subject to judicial scrutiny.
🔹 4. Union of India v. Pushkar Joshi (2022)
Relevance: Reinforced the binding nature of Collegium recommendations under Article 217.
Held: Delay in appointment undermines independence of judiciary.
📌 Summary Table:
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Article | 217 |
| Applies to | High Court Judges |
| Appointed by | President |
| Consultation with | CJI, State Governor, CJ of High Court |
| Retirement Age | 62 Years |
| Removal Process | By President via impeachment under Article 124(4) |
| Age Determination | By President with CJI consultation |
| Judicial Review? | Only on procedural grounds, not on merits or suitability |
🧠 Conclusion:
Article 217 is vital in ensuring the independence and integrity of the High Judiciary at the State level. While the President formally appoints High Court Judges, the Collegium system and judicial precedents have ensured that the judiciary retains a decisive say in appointments, preserving judicial independence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments