No difference in judicial powers of additional and permanent High Court judges: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that there is no distinction in the judicial powers and responsibilities of High Court judges appointed under Article 217 of the Indian Constitution and additional or acting High Court judges appointed under Article 224. [Mata Prasad Tiwari v. State].A bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that all High Court judges are duty-bound to perform the judicial work allotted to them, irrespective of the Constitutional provision under which they have been appointed.."So far as the judicial powers and duties of the judges are concerned, there is no difference between the Judges appointed under Article 217 of the Constitution of India and the Judges appointed under Article 224. In case a Judge appointed under Article 224 of the Constitution of India does not decide any case for the reason that he has been appointed under that Article, he would be failing in the performance of his Constitutional duties and he will be dis-respecting his oath," the judgment stated further. .The Court was hearing an application seeking a review of a division bench judgment in a special appeal. The applicant contended that the judgment was not pronounced as per the procedure prescribed in Chapter VII, Rule 1 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. Further, it was highlighted that one of the judges who heard the case was an additional judge appointed under Article 224 of the Constitution. The applicant contended that the formation of such a bench was against the spirit of the Constitution of India..The Court, however, clarified that the only distinction between additional and permanent High Court judges lay in the tenure of the judges.An additional or acting judge appointed under Article 224 serves for a limited duration, while other judges continue in office until the age of 62 years, the Court explained.Additionally, the bench highlighted that regardless of how they are appointed, all High Court judges take the same oath when assuming their office."The Judges appointed under Article 224 of the Constitution of India are also under oath to duly and faithfully and to the best of their ability, knowledge and judgment, perform the duties of their office without fear of favour, affection or ill-will like a Judge appointed under Article 217," the Court observed..The Court also rejected the contention that the judgment sought to be reviewed was pronounced in violation of Chapter VII, Rule 1 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.The applicant had contended that this provision had been flouted since the judgment under review was not pronounced in full in open court. The bench, however, observed that this provision was a directory one dealing with how judgments may be pronounced. It did not confer any rights on the applicant, the Court noted..The Court explained that the rule only provides that after a case has been heard, the judgment may be pronounced either at once, or on some future date."This Rule is a Rule of Procedure and it does not confer any substantive right on any party. The Rule does not provide any adverse consequence of the entire judgment not being pronounced in open Court immediately. In our considered view, the aforesaid Procedural Rule is merely directory in nature," the Court held..The Court proceeded to dismiss the review application after it examined the merits of the case and found that there was no error apparent on the face of the record. Advocates Rama Kant Dixit and Asok Pande represented the applicant. .[Read Order]