Why No Change In Uttar Pradesh On Bench Since 1948?
Explanation: Why No Change in Uttar Pradesh On Bench Since 1948?
Historical Background:
After India’s independence in 1947, the judicial structure underwent reorganization.
The UP High Court was established, and the composition of judges, including appointments, seniority, and representation from various parts of the state, was initially fixed.
Since then, the principle or convention of maintaining the status quo in the composition of the bench or the allocation of seats on the bench in UP High Court has been followed.
This is often due to administrative convenience, seniority considerations, and political balance.
Reasons for No Change in On Bench Since 1948:
Seniority and Precedent Principle in Judicial Appointments
Judicial appointments and promotions traditionally follow the principle of seniority.
Seniority protects judicial independence by preventing arbitrary appointments.
Once a seniority list or bench composition is settled, courts and appointing authorities usually avoid arbitrary changes.
Protection of Judicial Independence and Stability
Stability in judicial composition is considered important for institutional continuity and impartiality.
Frequent changes can create unrest and affect the smooth functioning of the judiciary.
Constitutional Provisions and Presidential Role
Appointment of High Court judges under Article 217 involves consultation with the Governor, Chief Justice of the High Court, and the Supreme Court.
Once appointments are made, the tenure and composition become relatively stable unless retirements or elevations occur.
Lack of Political or Administrative Will for Change
Since 1948, there has been limited push for altering the composition or the “on bench” reservation in UP.
This status quo continues by convention and practice.
Judicial Pronouncements Support Stability
Courts have often stressed the importance of respecting seniority and continuity in appointments.
No direct legal mandate forces change in composition if existing arrangements work well.
Relevant Case Law
1. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) 2 SCC 87 ( popularly known as the Judges’ Transfer Case)
The Supreme Court held that appointments and transfers of judges must follow transparency, consultation, and established conventions.
Stability and independence of judiciary are paramount.
This implies that sudden or arbitrary changes in bench composition or seniority lists are discouraged.
2. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 441
The judgment emphasized the importance of consultative process in judicial appointments.
It safeguards against arbitrary disruptions to bench composition.
3. In re Special Reference No. 1 of 1998 (1998) 7 SCC 739
The Court recognized the primacy of seniority and established practice in judicial appointments.
Reinforced that the appointment and composition of benches should ensure judicial independence and stability.
4. Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) 2 SCC 1
The Supreme Court underscored that changes in judicial compositions or appointments must not be used as tools for political or executive interference.
Stability in bench composition helps maintain public confidence.
Summary:
Since 1948, the “No Change” policy or practice in the UP On Bench refers to the preservation of the existing judicial composition, seniority, and appointment conventions.
The reasons include respecting seniority, protecting judicial independence, maintaining institutional stability, and following constitutional and consultative processes.
Supreme Court case law consistently supports this stability and discourages arbitrary or frequent changes in judicial bench composition.
The practice continues by convention and judicial precedents, ensuring smooth functioning of the High Court in UP.
RELATED Blog
0 comments