SC for sitting HC judges to head State Legal Service Authority

New Delhi, Apr 13 (UNI) The Supreme Court today directed that sitting judge of a high court should be appointed as Executive Chairman of the concerned State Legal Service Authority(SLSA) for better and effective functioning of the SLSA.

A bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and D K Jain allowed the writ petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) seeking directions not to appoint retired high court judges as chairman of SLSA ''as such course fell foul of the desired legislative effect.'' Most of states and union territories have accepted the genuineness of the problems highlighted in the petition.

There are only four states where retired judges are still functioning as Executive chairman of SLSA namely West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Manipur. The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) in its affidavit has also accepted that functioning of SLSAs headed by retired judges have been found dissatisfactory.

Orissa is also having retired judge as head of the state SLSA.

The apex court while allowing the petition noted, "Another disturbing feature is that some of the state governments have asked for panel of names to be given. Calling for such Panel in essence results in substitution of objectivity with subjectivity.

This is to be avoided. Though in terms of section 6(2) retired judge can be appointed but that shall have to be in exceptional circumstances. The advantage of having a sitting judge as chairman far outweigh the disadvantages, some of which have been highlighted by learned counsel for the states where retired judges are appointed. Therefore normal rule is that a sitting judge should be appointed as the chairman and only when unusual difficulties exist, retired judge may be appointed. That has to be the exception and not the rule." The court concluded by directing, "In some states retired judges have functioned for some time. The concerned state governments are directed to re-consider the matter with the consultation of the Chief Justice of the concerned state and do the needful within a period of four months." The court also deprecated the conduct of former Orissa high court chief justice for not maintaining transparency in the matter.

The apex court also found some of the statements made by the then chief justice of the state in his letter to the government as incorrect.

UNI