Case Analysis of

S.P. GUPTA v. U.O.I.

1982 2 SCR 365

NAME : MOSAM DHARMESH

PATEL
CLASS : SY B.L.S./LL.B. (SEM III)
ACADEMIC YEAR : 2022-23
DIV & ROLL NO : B035
SAP ID : 51002210004
DETAILS OF THE CASE:

❖ Writ petition number: 274 of 1981

❖ PETITIONER: S.P. GUPTA V. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA
❖ The Honourable Justice Y.V. Chandrachud was the then Chief Justice of India.
- The bench comprised seven judges.
- The majority of the judgement was given by Justice P.N. Bhagwati.
❖ The majority decision by 5:2 in this case held that the non-extension of an additional judge, i.e.,
in this case, the non-extension of Judge S.N. Kumar, was valid.
❖ This case is seen as a milestone in the history of precedents which introduced the concept of the
collegium system in India for the appointment of judges in the Supreme Court and the High
Courts.
BACKGROUND:
❖ It is one of the first cases of the ‘Three judges Cases’ now referred to as the ‘Four Judges case’ after
2015, which played an important role in introducing a collegium system for the appointment of judges
in the Supreme Court and High Courts.

❖ The Court, with the help of these cases, set a precedent for the principle of independent jurisdiction,
which means that no other organ of the government except the judiciary itself will interfere in the
election of judges. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), is the first case, which is also known as the
‘Judges’ Transfer Case’, established a precedent for the collegium system.

❖ S.P. Gupta was a pleader in the Allahabad High Court since 1951 and also served as the position of
Advocate General for the State of Uttar Pradesh twice during his long tenure in the profession. He was
the main face of the case and played an important role in a case that further led to the establishment of
the collegium system in the country for the appointment of judges.
ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE:

❖ The main issue, in this case, was the constitutional validity of the order of the Central
Government on non-appointments and transfer of judges in High Courts for a short term.
❖ The letter of disclosure of communication between the Minister of Law, the Chief Justice of
the Delhi High Court and the Chief Justice of India was also in question.
❖ The locus standi of the petitioners was also challenged.
❖ Another important issue was the independence of the judiciary and the procedure for the
appointment of judges in higher courts.
ARGUMENTS FROM THE SIDE OF THE
PETITIONER:
❖ The petitioners in their petitions argued the constitutional validity of the order of the
Central Government, which indirectly forced the judges to give their consent to the
appointment as additional judges or else their permanency in the profession would be
affected.
❖ They also argued and sought the disclosure of correspondence and communication that
was related to the non-appointment of judges and their transfer for a short term.
❖ Another argument was that the President failed in his duty under Article 216 of the
Constitution to appoint judges in the court to deal with the pendency of cases effectively,
and so a writ of mandamus must be issued against him. It also said that the procedure laid
out under Article 124 has not been followed properly.
JUDGEMENT EXPLAINED:
❖ The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the present case, while denying the argument of the respondents on the
disclosure of correspondence, held that the disclosure would not be made only if such disclosure would affect
the public interest and is contrary to public policy. But if the disclosure is necessary for the public to know, it
must be done without any delay.

❖ The Court talked about open and responsible government, where the government is accountable to the people
for its work. This concept of open government directly indicates the right to know given under the ambit of
freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

❖ When asked the Supreme Court of India whether the word “consultation” in the constitutional article 124
mean “concurrence”; the Supreme court overruled this and denied saying that Consultation does not
mean concurrence. The President was not bound to make a decision based on the consultation of the
Supreme Court.
MAJOR OUTCOME: COLLEGIUM SYSTEM WAS INTRODUCED

❖ In order to achieve independence of the judiciary and keep the executive away from
interfering in the procedure of appointment of judges, the idea and concept of the
collegium system were introduced in this case.
❖ Justice Bhagwati suggested that there must be a collegium to recommend the names of the
judges to the President, on the issue of appointment of judges in the Supreme Court and
the High Courts.
❖ It must consist of such persons that have no bias against anyone and must give the names
of such people that can contribute to the significance of the judiciary and serve its purpose.
❖ Although there has been a series of cases that helped the judiciary achieve its goal of
ensuring the independence of the judiciary but still, the procedure for the appointment of
judges cannot be seen as free from loopholes.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- https://blog.ipleaders.in/s-p-gupta-v-union-of-india-case-analysis/#:~:text=election%
20of%20judges.-,S.P.,the%20loopholes%20in%20the%20system
.
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1294854/
- https://www.intolegalworld.com/article?title=s-p-gupta-v-union-of-india-30th-decem
eber-1981
- https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/collegium-system/