Kerala High Court Says It Has Power To Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings Against District & Subordinate Court Judges In Lakshadweep

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday held that the control over district court and subordinate courts of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep including the power of disciplinary proceedings against the presiding officers of such courts vests with the High Court of Kerala by virtue of Article 235 of the Constitution.

A single bench of Justice P V Kunhikrishnan held,

“In the light of Article 235 of the Constitution of India, it is declared that the control over the district court and courts subordinate thereto mentioned in Article 235 of the Constitution of India includes the power of disciplinary proceedings against the presiding officers of district court and courts subordinate thereto. Since the district court and subordinate courts in Lakshadweep are under the supervision of the High Court of Kerala, it is declared that the High Court of Kerala has got the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the presiding officers of the district court and courts subordinate thereto in the Lakshadweep Islands. I also clarify that the 1st respondent is free to frame Rules in tune with Article 235 of the Constitution of India, if necessary.”

The Court was considering a review petition filed by K. Cheriya Koya, Sub Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate of Amini, Lakshadweep who is under suspension in compliance with the direction of the Court to the Administrator of Lakshadweep for conducting a detailed enquiry about his actions. Cheriya Koya filed the review petition contending that the Administrator has no disciplinary power over a judicial officer as only the High Court has control over subordinate courts.

It was argued by the Review Petitioner that the Administrator, being the executive cannot be given powers to suspend or take action against the petitioner who is a judicial officer, as this would be against the principles of separation of powers and independence of the judiciary.

The Administrator of Lakshwadeep argued that by virtue of Clause 5(ii) of the Constitution of Civil Codes in the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands (Civil Codes) Regulations 1965, the Administrator, after consultation with the High Court, can make rules regarding who may be appointed as Subordinate Judges and Munsiffs. The counsel for the High Court contended that the High Court has control over the judicial officers of Lakshadweep.

The Court noted that the since the Administrator was acting as the disciplinary authority of the Judicial officers in Lakshadweep, this legal contention had not been considered by the Court while passing its previous judgment. However, the Court observed as per Article 235, the High Court has control over District Courts and its subordinate courts which includes posting, promotion and grant of leave to persons in judicial service.

The Court relied on several decisions of the Apex Court to arrive at the conclusion that "Control" in Article 235 also includes initiating disciplinary proceedings against the presiding officers of District courts and courts subordinate to them. The Court also referred to decisions of the Apex Court to hold that the "Control" of the District Courts and the Courts subordinate thereto in Lakshadweep is vested with the High Court of Kerala.

“If there is any rule framed in violation of Article 235 of the Constitution, the same need not be looked into, because Article 235 of the Constitution prevails over all other rules. The Union territory of Lakshadweep is free to make appropriate rules, if necessary, in tune with Article 235 of the Constitution of India.” The Court observed.

The Court accordingly reviewed and modified a part of its earlier judgment. The Court modified its earlier direction to the Administrator of Lakshadweep and directed the High Court to take appropriate action against the review petitioner. The Court also made it clear that the review petitioner will be deemed to be in suspension until the High Court of Kerala passes consequential orders in the matter.

The Review petitioner also argued that once a portion of the judgment is to be reviewed, the entire judgment is to be recalled and it is the function of the court to pass a fresh judgment/order. However, the Court did not agree with this contention of the Petitioner.

“the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code is not as such applicable while deciding a review petition filed in a writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. That can only be a guiding principle. The jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, to review a judgment is wide and not controlled by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.”

Case Title: K Cheriya Koya V. U T Administration of Lakshadweep

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 282

Click here to read/download judgment