The majority laid down guidelines including a time schedule for the selection of judges for appointment even though this question had not been referred to it and there were no arguments at the Bar on this issue. Gupta case to hold that what the Chief Justice of India recommends is final. None of the successive Presidents exercised his power of calling for information from the Prime Minister under Article 78(b) of the Constitution to find out in which cases the recommendation for appointment of a high court judge had been turneddown by the ruling politicians and the ``cogent reasons'' for it.īut all this changed in 1993 when a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Advocates on Record Association vs Union of India overturned the S.P. None of the succeeding Chief Justices of India demanded from the ruling po-liticians the ``cogent reasons'' when their recommendations were turned down. Gupta laid do-wn that the recommendation for appointment made by the Chief Justice of the India is not to have primacy though his recommendation can be turned down by the ruling politicians at the Centre only for ``cogent reasons''. The Governor brings in the ruling politicians of the state and the President brings the ruling politicians of the Centre since both are bound to act by the advice given by the ruling politicians.

The permanent ones are appointed under Article 217of the Constitution which stipulates a consultation amo-ngst the chief justice of the high court, the governor of the state concerned, the Chief Justice of India and the President. These contractual two-year appointments are a violation of the Supreme Court judgment. Since it is all done secretly the citizens come to know about this only after the appointments are published in the press. New judges continue to be appointed on a two-year contract as additional judges. Only 24 are filled in spite of the existence of seven permanent vacancies.

The Delhi High court has a strength of 31 permanent posts. The practice is going on right in the Capital's high court even though it was banned in 1982 by the seven-judge bench that decided the first judges case, S.P.

Temporary judges are called additional judges who are appointed by the President for a maximum term of two years. The Constitution defines permanent judges as those who are appointed by the President till their retirement at sixty-two. The latest threat to the independence of the judiciary comes in the form of appointment of temporary judges in high courts.

S.p. gupta v. union of india