Statement of Facts: -

1. Various High Courts transferred to the Supreme Court writs “of great constitutional
importance affecting the independence of the judiciary,” concerning, generally, the
appointment of judges.
2. The first writ petition is filed by Iqbal Chagla and others in the High Court of
Bombay. The petitioners in this writ petition are advocates practising in the High
Court of Bombay and they have challenged a circular letter dated 18th March, 1981,
addressed by Shri Shiv Shankar, the Law Minister of the Government of India, to the
Governor of Punjab and the Chief Ministers of the other States. The letter concern
with the issue “one third of the Judges of the High Court should as far as possible be
from outside the State in which that High Court is situated and obtain from all the
Additional Judges working in the High Court of your State their consent to be
appointed as permanent Judges in any other High Court in the country. They could, in
addition, be requested to name three High Courts, in order of preference, to which
they would prefer to be appointed as permanent Judges.” Against this conjecture the
petition was filed stating that the letter was a direct attack on the independence of the
judiciary which is a basic feature of the Constitution. Since the circular letter was not
withdrawn by the Law Minister, the petitioners filed the present writ petition in the
High Court of Bombay challenging the constitutional validity of the circular letter and
seeking a declaration that if consent has been given by any additional Judge or by any
person whose name has been or is to be submitted for appointment as a Judge,
consequent on or arising from the circular letter, it should be held to be null and void.
3. The second writ petition is that filed by V.M. Tarkunde in the High Court of Delhi.
the petitioner in this writ not only challenged the constitutional validity of the circular
letter issued by the Law Minister but also assailed the practice followed by the Central
Govt. in appointing additional Judges in various High Courts. The grounds on which
the constitutional validity of the circular letter is challenged are the same as those
taken in the first petition filed by Iqbal Chagla and others, but, so far as the complaint
in respect of appointment of additional Judges is concerned, this writ petition covers
new ground not treaded by the first writ petition. What made it necessary to include
this complaint in the writ petition was the fact that three additional Judges of Delhi
High Court, namely, O.N. Vohra, S.N. Kumar and S.B. Wad, who had originally been
appointed as Additional Judges for a period of two years with effect from 7th March
 1979, and whose term was expiring on the midnight of 6th March 1981 were further
appointed as additional Judges for a period of three months only from 7th March 1981
and these short-term appointments were, according to the petitioner, unjustified by the
terms of Article 224 and were in any event subversive of the independence of the
judiciary. The petitioner therefore claimed in the writ petition, in addition to the
declaration that the circular letter was unconstitutional and void. The petitioner also
questioned the validity of short-term appointments of O.N. Vohra, S.N. Kumar and
S.B. Wad and claimed that since there was an existing vacancy in a permanent post,
O.N. Vohra should be appointed as a permanent Judge to fill that vacancy and so far
as S.N. Kumar and S.B. Wad were concerned, they should be appointed for the full
term of two years.
4. The third writ petition is that filed by J.L. Kalra and others in the High Court of Delhi.
The petitioners in this writ petition are advocates practising in the Delhi High Court
and they have prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
Central Government to make an assessment of the number of permanent and
additional Judges required by the Delhi High Court having regard to its current
business and the accumulated arrears, to create such number of posts of permanent
and additional Judges as may be necessary and to make appointments to these posts.
5. The fourth writ petition is that filed by S.P. Gupta in the High Court of Allahabad.
The petitioner in writ petition is an advocate practising in the Allahabad High Court
and he has filed this writ petition for substantially the same reliefs as the writ petitions
of Iqbal Chagla and V.M. Tarkunde, with only this difference that the reliefs claimed
by him relate to the appointments of additional Judges in the High Court of
Allahabad, The petitioner has inter alia prayed for a declaration that the three
additional Judges of the Allahabad High Court, namely, Mr. Justice Murlidhar, Mr.
Justice A.N. Verma and Mr. Justice N.N. Mittal must be deemed to have been
appointed permanent Judges under the warrants already issued to them and that the
circular letter of the Law Minister must be held to be void
6. The fifth writ petition is that filed by Miss Lily Thomas, an advocate practising in the
Supreme Court. This writ petition has challenged the transfer of Mr. Justice M.M.
Ismail, Chief Justice of the High Court of Madras as the Chief Justice of Kerala High
Court. What occasioned the filing of this writ petition was an order dated 19th Jan.,
1981 made by the President transferring Mr. Justice M.M. Ismail, Chief Justice of the
Madras High Court as Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court with effect from the
 date he assumed charge of his office. This order recited that it was made by the
President in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause (1) of Article 222 and after
consultation with the Chief Justice of India. Simultaneously with the making of this
order, another order of the same date was issued by the President whereby the
President in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (1) of Article 222 after
consultation with the Chief Justice transferred Mr. Justice K.B.N. Singh, Chief Justice
of the High Court of Patna as Chief Justice of the High Court of Madras with effect
from the date he assumed charge of his office. It was the first order of transfer" of Mr.
Justice M.M. Ismail as Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court that was challenged by
the petitioner in this writ petition. There were several grounds on which the transfer
was challenged and they were inter alia that the power of transfer conferred under
Clause (1) of Article 222 was confined only to transfer of a High Court Judge and did
not cover transfer of the Chief Justice of a High Court, even if the Chief Justice of a
High Court could be transferred in exercise of the power conferred under Clause (1)
of Article 222, such transfer could be effected only with consent of the Judge sought
to be transferred and in any event, even if consent was not necessary, such transfer
could be effected only in public interest and after full and effective consultation with
the Chief Justice of India and in the case of transfer of Chief Justice M.M. Ismail,
none of these conditions was satisfied, since the transfer was not effected with his
consent and it was neither in public interest nor after full and effective consultation
with the Chief Justice of India. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner under
Article 32 of the Constitution.
7. The sixth writ petition is that filed by A. Rajappa an advocate practising in the High
Court of Madras. This writ petition was originally filed in the High Court of Madras
under Article 226 of the Constitution and in this writ petition the petitioner challenged
the constitutional validity of the orders of transfer passed by the President on 19th
Jan., 1981 transferring Mr. Justice M.M. Ismail, Chief Justice of Madras High Court
as the Chief Justice of Kerala High Court and Mr. Justice K.B.N. Singh, Chief Justice
of Patna High Court as the Chief Justice of Madras High Court. The principal grounds
on which these two orders of transfer were assailed as unconstitutional and void were
substantially the same as those urged in the fifth writ petition filed by Miss Lily
Thomas, with only two additional grounds, namely, that the transfers having been
effected without prior consultation with the Governors of the States to which the two
Chief Justices were transferred, were violative of Clause (1) of Article 217 and so far
 as the transfer of Chief Justice K.B.N. Singh as Chief Justice of Madras High Court
was concerned, it was not in public interest.
8. Last two writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Orders of transfer of
Chief Justice M.M. Ismail and Chief Justice K.B.N. Singh raised identical issues and
we would therefore dispose them of together in one group. They may for the sake of
convenience be referred as the second group of writ petitions.

Issues: -

1. Whether the correspondence letter is in direct violation of the basic structure of

constitution i.e., independence of the judiciary.
2. Whether petitioners are having Locus Standi.
3. Whether the temporary appointment of the additional Judges valid.
4. Whether the transfer of Chief justices of High-courts are valid.