Lacks Authority: Gujarat High Court Directs Deletion Of Strictures Passed By Single Judge Against Registry Over Delay In Installation Of Cameras

The Gujarat High Court while directing for deletion of strictures issued by the single-judge over non-installation of CCTV Cameras in the Court premises has observed that he lacked authority for the same.

The Court, in the Appeal, was examining the supreme authority of the Chief Justice on the Administrative Side which it stated was no more res integra.

The Division Bench of Justice AS Supehia and Justice R.T. Vachhani held, "Thus, on an overall assessment of the issue, though, we commend the concern expressed by the learned Single Judge relating to the issue of installation of the CCTV cameras, with due respect, we hold that the learned Single Judge in his judicial capacity lacks the authority to command the Registry in any way on the issue, which exclusively lies under the domain and control of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, as doing so would go against the authority, control and supremacy of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. The puisne Judges cannot encroach on the supremacy of the Chief Justice, when it comes to administrative control, regulation and functions of the Registry and its staff, unless it is specifically delegated or assigned to a Judge or Committee on Administrative Side by the Chief Justice."

The Appellant was represented by Senior Advocate Shalin Mehta, while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Vyom H. Shah.

The Court noted that by the impugned order, the Single Judge had made stigmatic observations on the Registry on the issue relating to the installation of the CCTV cameras in the Registry of this Institution and pointed out that timely reports are called for verifying the status of installation of the CCTV cameras.

"From the impugned order, it is manifest that the work of installation of the CCTV cameras is undertaken and is presently going-on. The Special Criminal Application, in which the initial order was passed, was not listed along with the captioned writ petitions, and the cause has been pursued by amalgamating different writ petitions having distinct jurisdiction and roster. Thus, the learned Single Judge, by passing the impugned order, has travelled beyond the roster assigned by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. We may at this stage, deal with the scope of administrative control of the Chief Justice of the High Court", the Court observed.

It referred to the Supreme Court's decision in High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan vs. Ramesh Chand Paliwal & Anr., (1998) wherein the power and status of the Chief Justice under Article 229 of the Constitution of India has been emphasized.

The Court thus stressed that the Supreme Court has delivered a cautionary advice that under Article 229 of the Constitution, the Chief Justice of the High Court is the supreme authority in the matter of appointments of the High Court officers and servants, and the Chief Justice of the High Court is the sole authority in these matters and “no other Judge or officer can legally usurp the administrative functions” and thus, the delegatory powers of the Chief Justice in regulating the administration of the High Court is supreme.

It also emphasized that the administrative functions of different departments/ Registry of the High Court also significantly contribute towards maintaining the majesty, grandeur and repute of the High Court

"Such standards can only be achieved by reposing full faith in the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, and any act or issue which bristles with such authority can always be sorted out on the Administrative Side", the Court observed.

The impugned order was accordingly quashed and set aside.

Cause Title: High Court of Gujarat vs. Babubhai Sampatbhai Pateliya & Ors.

Appearances:

Appellant- Senior Advocate Shalin Mehta, Advocate Hamesh C Naidu

Respondent- Advocate Vyom H. Shah

Click here to read/ download Order