Case Law Details
Satara District Bar Association Satara Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)
There is certainly an element of confidentiality in the notings by Judges of any Committee of this Court. There is also very good reason why such notings should not in fact ever be disclosed or allowed to be disclosed. Whether or not this falls within the description of “a fiduciary relationship” is something we need not examine further. But the routine practice is that a submission from the Registry is placed before each of the Judges in that particular committee in turn. It is placed in order of seniority beginning with the Judge who is most junior in terms of years of service on the Bench. This is done consciously so that the Judges who are given the papers next in sequence have the benefit of seeing the comments and notings previously made and of then either agreeing or raising any other point. Often, any Judge in this list irrespective of the hierarchy, may ask that the point be discussed in the meeting. That request is always accepted. In any meeting, there is no question of any Judge being senior or junior. At that stage, all are equally entitled to voice their views. There is a full and frank exchange of views; dissents, especially noted dissents, are exceedingly rare. A judge who had earlier endorsed contrary notings might, in the discussions that followed with the other Judges reverse his position. We may also note that the system of placing a submission before “a junior” Judge first does not indicate and is not meant to indicate that any less weightage is given to that opinion. These are our internal processes for dealing with complex administrative issues. In Maharashtra, this is indeed especially complex given the size of the judiciary and the fact that decision-making is not confined to matters pertaining to the High Court alone. Withholding file notings is, in our view, entirely salutary. This is required for the better administration of justice. The actual material may be disclosed pursuant to an RTI enquiry as along with the final decision but the file notings are only transitory and tentative views and an exchange of views. These should under no circumstances be allowed to be brought into public domain or be made the subject of any controversy.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. We have heard Mr Anturkar for the Petitioners and Dr Sathe for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
2. Filed by the Satara District Bar Association, this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges what it calls “approvals” dated 31st July 2015 and 6th March 2020 of this High Court on its administrative side. The impugned approvals relate to the establishment at Wai in the Satara District of a Court of an Additional District Judge and a Court of a Civil Judge, Senior Division.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
