K. Vijay Lakshimi (Smt) vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & Ors AIR 2013 SC 3589
The Appellant was an advocate practicing in the courts at Markapur, District Prakasam in the state of Andhra Pradesh. The Andhra Pradesh High Court (Respondent No. 2 herein) had invited applications for the appointments to 105 posts of (Junior) Civil Judges. After the interviews, some 81 candidates from amongst the direct recruits were selected by a committee of Hon’ble Judges of the High Court, and this selection was approved by the Full Court on the administrative side. The Appellant was one of those who were selected,
However, it so transpired that whereas the other selected candidates were issued appointment letters, the Appellant was not. She, therefore, applied under the provisions of The Right to Information Act, 2005, to find out the reason of her non-appointment. She received a letter from the Respondent No. 1 which gave the following reason therefor:
I am directed to inform you that, adverse remarks were reported in the verification report, that your husband Sri. Srinivasa Chowdary, who is practicing as an Advocate in the Courts at Markapur is having close links with CPI (Maoist) Party which is a prohibited organisation.
of persons associated with this party, but she has never appeared in any such case. She further stated that her husband was a member of a panel of advocates who had defended political prisoners, against whom the district police had foisted false cases, and those cases had ended in acquittals. She disputed the bona-fides of the police department in making the adverse report, and relied upon the resolutions passed by various bar associations expressing that her husband was being made to suffer for opposing the police in matters of political arrests.
The Hon’ble Court observed that the decision taken by the State to not appoint a selected candidate for post of civil Judge in view of adverse police report without forwarding relevant papers to High Court for its consideration is contrary to Art 234 which specifically requires that these appointments are to be made after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and the High Court exercising jurisdiction in the concerned State. The High Court may accept the adverse report or it may not. Ultimately, inasmuch as the selection is for the appointment to a judicial post, the Governor will have to be guided by the opinion of the High Court. In the instant case in view of the letter from the Home Department, the High Court has thrown up its hands and has not sought any more information from the State.
In view of the mandate of Article 234, the High Court has to take a decision on the suitability of a candidate on the administrative side, and it cannot simply go by the police reports, though such reports will, of course, form a relevant part of its consideration. To deny a public employment to a candidate solely on the basis of the police report regarding the political affinity of the candidate would be offending the Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, unless such affinities are considered likely to effect the integrity and efficiency of the candidate, or unless there is clear material indicating the involvement of the candidate in the subversive or violent activities of a banned organisation.
The appellant selected candidate could not be turned back at the very threshold, on the ground of her alleged political activities.
She, therefore, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature. The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved by this decision, the Appellant filed an appeal to the apex court.
The Appellant stated that she was not a member of CPI (Maoist), nor did she have any connection with the banned organisation or with any of its leaders. She disputed that any such organisation, by name CMS existed, and in any case, she was not a member of any such organisation. She submitted that her husband must have appeared in some bail applications
The court further observed that all such accused do have the right to be defended lawfully until they are proved guilty, and the advocates have the corresponding duty to represent them, in accordance with law.
We cannot ignore that during the freedom struggle, and even after independence, many leading lawyers have put in significant legal service for the political and civil right activists, arrested or detained.
