Dismissing a petition challenging the appointment of justice JN Patel, a sitting judge of the Bombay high court, a division bench of the very court held that he did fulfil the eligibility criteria for a judge of the high court.
Justice Patel was sworn in as a judge of the high court on March 11, 1996.
Advocate and former sessions court judge VP Patil had filed the petition challenging Patel’s appointment stating he had not completed 10 years of judicial service as mandated in Article 217 (2)(A) of the constitution of India.
Justifying justice Patel’s appointment, additional solicitor general DJ Khambata stated that although justice Patel held judicial office for eight years, 10 months and 19 days, the deficiency can be made compensated with his earlier practice. Patel was a practising lawyer for 13 years before he took up judicial office.
“It is liberalised to have a mix between the bar and the bench,” said Khambata, adding that are many instances of judges who have spent less than 10 years of judicial work.
Advocate general Ravi Kadam, who was appointed amicus curie (friend of the court), said that eligibility of a candidate to be appointed as judge can be a matter of judicial review. However, suitability is out of bounds for judicial review. In this case, Kadam said, it was not raised. The judges upheld the submissions of Khambata and Kadam and declined to entertain the petition.
Comments