Can Centre Reject CJI's Recommendation For Court Allowance To SC Staff? Plea In Supreme Court

a. The Proviso to Article 146(2) of the Constitution does not empower the Ministry of Law and Justice to reject the approval without as much as putting up the proposal before the President of India. In fact, declining approval would require the President of India and the Chief Justice of India to "exchange thoughts" on the issue before declining approval. This Court in Supreme Court Employees Welfare Assn. v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 187 held,

"57. ... It is equally true that when such rules have been framed by a very high dignitary of the State, it should be looked upon with respect and unless there is very good reason not to grant approval, the approval should always be granted. If the President of India is of the view that the approval cannot be granted, he cannot straightway refuse to grant such approval, but before doing so, there must be exchange of thoughts between the President of India and the Chief Justice of India."

In a similar case, this Hon'ble Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chandra Mundra (2019) SCC Online 1670 held,

"10. We however find that the matter has not been properly processed by the State Government. In the first instance, the government did not even forward the decision of the Chief Justice for approval to the Governor of the State. They were indeed bound to do so. They merely returned the proposal to the High Court as "not acceptable". No reasons were given by the Governor."

b. The constitutional scheme of separation of powers requires that the judiciary has financial freedom in respect of its own employees. This would ensure and invigorate the essence of the independence of the judiciary. In State of Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chandra Mundra (2019) SCC Online 1670, this Hon'ble Court held,

"20. That independence of Judiciary is part of the basic structure of the Constitution is now well entrenched. The Constitution has insulated the Judiciary from outside influences both by the Executive and legislature. Article 223 to 234 in Chapter VI in part VI of the Constitution dealing with the Courts below the High Courts also show that the Constitution makers were equally keen to insulate even Subordinate Judiciary. Independence of Judiciary takes within its sweep independence of the individual Judges in relation to their appointments, tenure, payment of salaries and also non-removal except by way of impeachment. An integral part of 'Independence of Judiciary', as a constitutional value is the 'Institutional Independence' i.e. the aspect concerning the financial freedom or autonomy which the judiciary must possess and enjoy. This effective involvement of the judicial branch in budgeting, staff and infrastructure has also been recognized by the international community."

c. The 'Court Allowance' was sanctioned by the Chief Justice of India after the approval of Committee of Judges of this Hon'ble Court, and after perusing the representation filed by the Petitioner- Association herein. The Hon'ble Judges of this Court had applied their minds and found necessary the allowance. The Respondent- Union has not considered that the rejection of approval would be in the face of the application of mind by constitutional dignitaries who had already applied their mind and approved the Allowance.

d. It is submitted that the 'Court Allowance' is on the lines of the 'Parliamentary Allowance' granted to the Officers and Staff of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Secretariat. The allowance was made "inview of the arduous nature of duties performed" by the employees of the Parliament Secretariats. The Court Allowance, similarly, was envisaged by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India due to the arduous and strenuous work undertaken by the Court-Staff under great and urgent pressure. The Court Allowance and Parliamentary Allowance are thus similar in nature, and the Ministry of Law and Justice was not entitled to reject approval for the same. This Hon'ble Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chandra Mundra (2019) SCC Online 1670 held,

"17. On a reading of the constituent assembly debates, it is clear that the real object of the proviso is to ensure that the pay-scales between officers of constitutional courts and civil services are kept equal. In the present case, this purpose has not been violated. It is not open to the government to reject a proposal which is not in violation of this object. In other words, the only ground on which the Government may refuse the proposal of the Chief Justice is that the proposal is not in conformity with the pay scales in civil services."

e. It is submitted that an efficient and committed administrative staff is essential for a vibrant functioning of the judicial branch. With respect, it is stated that the administration of administration of justice will come to a grinding halt without the continuous and arduous work of the employees of the Hon'ble Court.

The plea further submits that in 2001, The Second Report of the Pay Committee of the Parliament recommended that the employees of the Secretaries of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha be granted an allowance during sessions period, known as 'Parliamentary Allowance' due to the "arduous nature of work". This was later paid for the whole year. Further, it is stated that in 2009, The Report of the Fourth Parliamentary Pay Committee recommended that due to the "urgent nature of work" and the fact that the employees of the Secretariats are busy throughout the year, the Parliamentary Pay Committee proposed that the employees of the Secretariats be granted Parliamentary Allowance throughout the year. Besides, it is indicated that on 07.01.2015 The Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association addressed letter dated 07.01.2015 to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India seeking the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India's indulgence to inter alia grant a 'Court Allowance' on the lines of the Parliamentary Allowance for arduous and urgent work involved in the Supreme Court. The Petitioner stated, "That the Parliament and Supreme Court are two Constitutional bodies in their respective field, though the duties and responsibilities of the Parliament employees and Supreme Court employees may be different in nature, but by no stretch of imagination, the duties, functions and responsibilities of the Supreme Court employees can be considered as less arduous and onerous than those of the employees of the Parliament Secretariat. In fact, the nature of duties and responsibilities of various functionaries in the Registry require prompt and urgent of work in a time bound manner. " In April, 2017, The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India appointed a Committee of Hon'ble Judges and a Committee of Officers to assist the Committee of Hon'ble Judges, to consider the requests of the Petitioner-Association. The Committee of Officers submitted report dated April, 2017 to the Committee of Hon'ble Judges recommending the grant of the 'Court Allowance'. The Committee of Hon'ble Judges carefully considered the matter of grant of 'Court Allowance' and recommended to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India that the 'Court Allowance' be granted on the pattern of Parliamentary Allowance. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India approved the grant of 'Court Allowance' and sought for the approval of the President as per the terms of the Proviso to Article 146(2) of the Constitution. Thus, letter dated 30.07.2019 came to be issued by the Registrar of this Hon'ble Court to the Secretary (Justice), Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, for the sanction/approval of the President. The Ministry of Law and Justice addressed letter dated 25.09.2020 to the Ld. Secretary General, Supreme Court of India stating that the proposal for granting Court Allowance "has not been agreed to." However, neither were any reasons were accorded for the decision nor was the proposal placed before the President for His consideration. This letter is violative of Article 146 and Article 14, as well as the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court, where it has been held that the denial of approval under Article 146(2) would require exceptional reasons and a communication of the same to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India by the President of India.