SP Gupta vs Union of India | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• Case Name: SP Gupta vs Union of India [SP Gupta Case]
• Type: Writ Petition Number 274 of 1981
• Citation: AIR 1982 SC 149
• Petitioner: S.P. Gupta
• Respondents: Union of India
• Bench: The bench in SP Gupta vs Union of India was comprised of seven judges, with the Honourable Justice Y.V. Chandrachud as the then Chief Justice of India and Justice P.N. Bhagwati later becoming the Chief Justice of the country in 1985.
  The other judges on the bench were:
  • Justice P.N. Bhagwati
  • Justice A.C. Gupta
  • Justice S.M. Fazal Ali
  • Justice V.D. Tulzapurkar
  • Justice D.A. Desai
  • Justice R.S. Pathak
  • Justice F.S. Venkataramaiah

Background of SP Gupta vs Union of India

• SP Gupta vs Union of India is a significant milestone in the series of cases known as the ‘Three Judges Cases,’ now referred to as the ‘Four Judges Case’ since 2015. These cases were instrumental in instituting a collegium system for appointing judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts.
• These cases established the principle of independent jurisdiction, ensuring that the judiciary has sole authority over judge appointments without interference from other branches of government.
• SP Gupta v Union of India, also known as the ‘Judges’ Transfer Case’ in 1981, laid the groundwork for the collegium system. Subsequent cases in 1993 and 1998 further solidified and clarified the system. In 2015, the fourth case abolished the National Judicial Appointment Commission, which previously assisted the President in judge selections.
• SP Gupta, a prominent legal figure, played a crucial role in shaping the establishment of the collegium system. As a respected pleader in the Allahabad High Court and former Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh, his involvement was pivotal in this case.

Brief Facts of SP Gupta vs Union of India

• The legal battle of SP Gupta vs Union of India originated in 1981 through multiple writ petitions filed by legal professionals in various high courts.
• These petitions collectively contested a government order that involved the non-appointment of two judges and their subsequent transfer.
• The initial petition was filed in the Bombay High Court, followed by another in the Delhi High Court, questioning both the government's order and the constitutional aspects of appointing judges to higher courts.
• The crux of the matter focused on the appointment of three additional judges to the Supreme Court for a temporary period, which was seen as conflicting with Article 224 of the Constitution.
• The petitions aimed to change these temporary roles into permanent positions to uphold judicial independence.
• One of the petitioners, S.P. Gupta, an advocate in the Allahabad High Court, specifically challenged the appointment of Justice Murlidhar, Justice A.N. Verma, and Justice N.N. Mittal as additional judges.
• An advocate from the Ministry of Law and Justice argued against the validity of the petitions, asserting that the government's actions did not cause any legal harm.

Issues Raised

• The key concern in the SP Gupta vs Union of India case was the debate over the constitutional validity of the Central Government's directive on the non-appointment and short-term transfer of judges in High Courts.
• The case also delved into the disclosure of communications between the Minister of Law, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, and the Chief Justice of India, raising questions about transparency and accountability.
• Challenges were raised regarding the standing (locus standi) of the petitioners, questioning their legal right to bring the case forward.
• Another significant issue highlighted was the independence of the judiciary and the processes governing the selection and appointment of judges in higher courts.

Contentions of the Parties in SP Gupta v Union of India

Arguments Presented by the Petitioners

• The petitioners in SP Gupta vs Union of India raised concerns about the constitutionality of the Central Government's order.
• They argued that the order placed undue pressure on judges to accept additional appointments or risk their professional security.
• The petitioners also demanded access to communications regarding judge appointments and short-term transfers.
• They accused the President of not fulfilling their duty to appoint judges promptly to tackle the backlog of cases.
• The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus against the President and claimed that Article 124 procedures were not correctly followed.

Arguments Presented by the Respondents

• The respondents in SP Gupta vs Union of India justified non-disclosure based on Article 74(2), which protects advice given by the Council of Ministers to the President.
• They referenced Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which prohibits the use of unpublished documents as evidence in court.
• Citing the State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh case, they argued that documents related to 'state affairs' are at the discretion of department heads for publication.
• They contended that advice from Council of Ministers is shielded from disclosure under Section 123 of the Evidence Act.
• The respondents claimed the petitions were not maintainable as the petitioners did not suffer any harm due to the government's order.
• They argued that since the appointed judges did not challenge the order, the petitions should not be entertained by the Court.

In the SP Gupta v Union of India case, the petitioners contested the legality of the Central Government's order, claiming it pressured judges to accept additional roles or risk their positions. They also requested access to relevant communications. On the other hand, the respondents defended non-disclosure citing legal provisions and argued against the maintainability of the petitions due to the lack of harm suffered by the petitioners.

Judgement of the Court in SP Gupta vs Union of India

Majority Decision – 5:2

• SP Gupta vs Union of India involved a 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India.
• Justice Bhagwati suggested forming a collegium to recommend judge appointments.
• Justice Pathak and Tulzapukar stressed the Chief Justice's pivotal role in decisions.
• 'Consultation' was defined as thorough deliberation based on complete facts.

Explanation of the Judgment

• The Supreme Court upheld the need for disclosure of correspondence unless against public interest.
• Transparency and accountability are vital in a democracy.
• The right to information is crucial, except in cases of national security.
• Correspondence in SP Gupta vs Union of India didn't qualify as official advice.
• Unpublished documents can be treated as evidence if in the public interest.
• Appointments and transfers of judges must consider fairness, justice, and public interest.

Other Cases of Four Judges' Cases

There are three other cases that are covered in the four judges’ cases as referred to after 2015 that helped in establishing a fair procedure for the appointment of judges and establishing a collegium for this purpose.
These are:

• Supreme Court Advocate On Record Association v. Union of India (1993) – Second Judges Case
• Re special reference 1 of 1998 – Third Judges Case
• Supreme Court v. Union of India (2015) – Fourth Judges Case

Conclusion

• SP Gupta vs Union of India, famously known as the “Judges’ Transfer Case” (1981), was a significant legal milestone in India. The central issue concerned the constitutional validity of the Central Government’s decisions regarding the non-extension of an additional judge’s term and their transfer. The majority decision, with a 5:2 ratio, upheld the validity of these actions. Justice Bhagwati advocated for the establishment of a collegium to recommend judicial appointments to the President, while Justices Pathak and Tulzapurkar highlighted the importance of the Chief Justice of India's opinion in such matters.
• The court underscored in the SP Gupta case that ‘consultation’ should entail thorough and effective deliberation, and that disclosure of government correspondence should be made unless it compromises public interest. This case significantly influenced India’s judicial landscape by addressing matters pertaining to judicial appointments, transparency, and the government's accountability to the public.