Holding

Article 130 is an enabling provision, not a mandatory duty, and the writ petition raised no arguable issue; therefore it should have been dismissed in limine and the High Court’s order issuing notice was erroneous.

Summary

The Union of India appealed against a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that issued notice in a writ petition seeking to direct the Chief Justice of India to appoint Indore as a seat for the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the writ petition raised any arguable or triable issue under Article 226 and whether Article 130 imposes a mandatory duty on the Chief Justice to locate the Supreme Court outside Delhi. It held that Article 130 is an enabling provision, not a mandatory obligation, and that no action had been taken under it, so the question of justiciability did not arise. Consequently, the writ petition did not raise any triable issue and should have been dismissed in limine without notice. The Court set aside the High Court’s order, dismissed the writ petition, and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 that does not raise any arguable or triable issue must be dismissed in limine without issuing notice.
Whether Article 130 creates a mandatory duty on the Chief Justice of India to appoint seats of the Supreme Court outside Delhi, making it justiciable.
Whether the High Court can, under Article 226, direct the Chief Justice of India or the President to appoint such seats.
Whether the question of justiciability of Article 130 arises when no action has been taken under the provision.
Whether the High Court erred in issuing notice in the writ petition.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 130, s. Article 136, s. Article 226, s. Article 32, s. Article 36, s. Article 361

Subjects

Article 130Article 226writ petitionpreliminary hearingdismissal in liminejusticiabilitySupreme Court seatconstitutional lawpublicity forum

Judgment

A UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
v.
S.P. ANAND AND ORS.

AUGUST 7, 1998

B [S.C. AGRA WAL, DR. A.S. ANAND AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.]

Constitution of India, I 950 :

Articles I 36 and 226--Rule nisi-Jssuance of -By High Court-To
C parties impleaded as respondents in writ petition-Appeal against-Before
Supreme Court-Entertainment of -Held: The question whether the writ
petition prima facie raises arguable or triable issues can be agitated before
the Supreme Court in order to assail the High Court's order.

Article 226--Writ petition-Maintainability of -Rule nisi-Issuance
D of-Held: High Court should be satisfied that a prima facie case is made
out-If the High Court finds that the petition raises no triable issues it has
to be dismissed in limine.

Articles 130 and 226--Writ Petition-Maintainability of-Triable or
arguable issues-Raising of in writ petition-Writ petition filed before
E High Court sought direction appointing Indore (MP) as one of the places
where Supreme Court should commence sitting- Notice issued to
respondents in the writ petition-Correctness of-Held: No court has
jurisdiction to grant such relief-Since writ petition raises no arguable or
triable issues-Hence issue of notice not called for and the writ petition
F liable to be dismissed in limine-At the stage of preliminary hearing of a
writ petition, High Court should be cautious and guard against the practice
of using the court as a forum for gaining cheap publicity.

Article I 30-Scope of-Held: An enabling provision and does not
. cast a mandatory obligation on the CJJ to appoint a place or places other
c
.G than Delhi as the seat of Supreme Court-This requires a policy decision
by the CJI and approval of the President-No court can give direction to
CJJ or President to exercise power under Art. 130 for appointing any
place other than Delhi for the sitting of the Supreme Court.

The respondents filed & writ petition before the High Court seeking
H a direction for appointing Indore as one the places where the Supreme Court
1046
U.0.1. v. S.P. ANAND 1047
shall commence sittings. The President was impleaded as a respondent to the A
writ petition notwithstanding the bar contained in Article 361 of the
Constitution, since according to the petitioner, the said bar does not preclude
the President from being joined as a party. Reference was made to the
decision of a Special Bench of Seven Judges to this Court in Shamsher Singh
v. State ofPunjab and Anr.. AIR (1974) SC 2192, and the correctne!ls of the
said decision was assailed but the reason why t~e said decision should be B
reviewed was not indicated. As regards Article 130 the case of the respondents
was that the said provision postulated that the Supreme Court should sit
throughout the country and therefore at Indore also and that the omission
to provide for sittings of Supreme Court or nearby places, viz., Dewas, Ujjain,
Mahow, Dhar, was ex facie unconstitutional and discriminatory. It was C
claimed that Article 130 contained a binding mandate, which could not be
disregarded. The submission of the respondents was that under Article 130
a mandatory duty had been cast on the Chief Justice of India to appoint a
place or places other than Delhi in various parts of the country for the seat
of the Supreme Court and that failure on the part of the Chief Justice of
India to carry out this mandatory duty could be enforced by seeking D
appropriate direction from the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution. It was urged that the said power conferred on the Chief Justice
of India under Article 130 is justiciable and is subject to judicial review by
the courts. The respondents had stated that the writ petition was not in the
nature of Public Interest Litigation, but it was for enforcement of the individual E
rights of the respondents who had agricultural and urban properties situate
at and around Indore. It was stated that the omission to provide sittings at
Indore was causing hostile discrimination between citizens and residents of
New Delhi and those residing in and around Indore like the respondents on
account of absence of availability of the judicial remedy under Article 32
of the Constitution. Respondent No. 2 was practising as an Advocate at F
Indore and his grievance was that because of omission to provide sittings of
the Supreme Court at Indore he was suffering loss of practice and resultant
financial loss as compared with the Advocates at New Delhi. A Single Judge
of the High Court passed an order issuing notice to the parties impleaded
as respondents in the said writ petition. The appellants filed the present G
appeal challenging the aforesaid order passed by the High Court.

On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the writ petition of
the respondents seeking the above mentioned relief was not maintainable
inasmuch as in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, the High Court could not give a direction to the Chief Justice H
1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998) 3 S.C.R.

A of India with regard to a place or places where the Supreme Court should
sit since this was a matter which fell exclusively within the discretionary
power vested in the Chief Justice of India under Article 130 of the
Constitution; and, therefore, the High Court should have refused to entertain
the writ petition and that the Single Judge of the High Court was in error
B in entertaining the same and passing the impugned order.

A preliminary objection was raised by the respondents against the
maintainability of the appeal on the ground that at the stage of the preliminary
hearing of the writ petition the High Court had the discretion to either admit
or dismiss it in limine or to entertain the same and before admitting the writ
C petition issue notice to the respondents; that in the present case, the High
Court had exercised this discretion by directing issue of notice to the
respondents in the writ petition; that the exercise of the said discretion by
the High Court could not be interfered with by this Court under Article 136
of the Constitution especially when no injury or loss had been caused by the
impugned order directing issue of notice to the respondents in the writ
D petition; and that in response to the notice the respondents to the writ
petition could make their submissions before the High Court and, ifthe High
Court was satisfied that there was no merit in the writ peti<ion, it would pass
an appropriate order on the writ petition.

E Allowing the appt>al, this Court

HELD: 1 There is no merit in the preliminary objection. At the stage
of preliminary hearing of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution the High Court is required to consider whether on the basis of
the averments contained in the writ petition the petitioner therein is entitled
F to seek the relief prayed for the such relief can be granted by the court in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the court
is of the opinion that a primafacie case is made out for granting the relief
sought in the writ petition, rule nisi is issued calling upon the person or
persons against whom the relief is sought to show cause why such relief
G should not be granted. But if the court finds that no such prima facie case
in made out, the writ petition has to be dismissed without issuing notice to
the person or persons against whom the relief is sought. The object of
placing a writ petition before the court for preliminary hearing is to ensure
that a writ petition which is frivolous in nature or in which no relief can
be granted by the court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the
H Constitution is dismissed at tt.e threshold. A writ petition canm;it be dismissed
'
U.0.1. v. S.P. ANAND 1049
in limine if it raises triable issues, but if is found that the writ petition on A
its face does not raise any triable issue, it is liable to be dismissed in limine.
[1052-G-H; 1053-A-B-El
Himansu Kumar Bose v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter, AIR (1964) SC 1636,
followed.
B
Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal [:ommittee, Bhatinda, AIR (1970) SC 802,
relied on.

2.1. The impugned order of the High Court cannot be upheld unless
it can be said that the writ petition raises an arguable question relating to
the interpretation of Article 130 of the Constitution. As to whether the writ C
petition filed by the petitioners raises an arguable issue relating to the
interpretation of Article 130 of the Constitution is a matter which can be
agitated before this Court by the appellants in order to assail the impugned
order under Article 136 of the Constitution. [1054-F-Gl

2.2. The question, therefore, is whether an arguable issue can be said D
to have been raised in the writ petition. In the present case the averments
..., in the petition are of the rambling nature and lack cohesion. Article 130 is
in the nature of an enabling provision which empowers the Chief Justice of
India, with the approval of the President, to appoint a place or places other
than Delhi as the seat of the Supreme Court. Article 130 cannot be construed E
as casting a mandatory obligation on the Chief Justice of India to appoint a
place or places other than Delhi as seat of the Supreme Court. Making of
an order under Article 130 of the Constitution providing for sitting of the
Supreme Court at place other than Delhi requires in the first place a
decision by the Chief Justice of India in that regard and thereafter the
),., approval of the proposal of the Chief ,Justice of India by the President on F
the advice of the Council of Ministers. No court can give a direction either
to the Chief Justice of India or the President to exercise the power conferred
under Article 130 and to pass an order appointing Indore and/or any other
place or places in India as the seat/seats for the sitting of the Supreme Court
as sought by the petitioners in the writ petition. G
(1054-H; 1056-E-F; 1057-A-8)
SP Anand v. HD. Deve Gowda, [1996) 6 SCC 734, relied on.

Shemsher Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1974) SC 2192, referred to.

Constitutional Assembly Debates dated 29-5-1949, referred to. H
,
1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A 3.1. A question regarding justiciability can arise only in respect of
an action that has been taken under a provision of the constitution or a law.
Since no action has been taken in the present case under Article 130 of the
Constitution, the question of justiciability of such action does not arise in
the present case. (1057-C]

B Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India,
(1993) 4 sec 441, held inapplicable.

3.2. On this view of Article 130 of the Constitution, the whole edifice
of the case set up by the petitioners in the writ petition falls to the ground.
C The relief sought by the petitioners in the writ petition filed by the petitioners
in the High Court could not be granted in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution and the said writ petition could not be
entertained. The issuing of a notice to the respondents in the writ petition
would serve no useful purpose and would only distract the respondents from
performing their other important functions. This was a case, which should
D have been dismissed in limine, and the High Court was in error in issuing
a notice to the respondents to defend the writ petition. [1058-D-E)
T
4. At the stage of preliminary hearing of a writ petition, the High
Court, before issu1ng a notice to the respondent, has to guard against the
court being used as a forum for gaining publicity by the person or persons
E moving the writ petition. The need for such caution is greater when a person
holding a high constitutional office is impleaded as a respondent in the writ
petition or when matters of policy are involved. In the instant case, in passing
the impugned order issuing notice on the writ petition the Single Judge of
the High Court has failed to bestow the requisite care and circumspection.
F (1058-G-HJ
Mithi/esh Kumar v. R. Venkataraman, [1988) 1 SCR 525, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3692 of
1998.

G From the Judgment and Order dated 3.4.98. of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in W.P. No. 500of1998.

Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General oflndia, Tara Chandra Sharma and P.
Parmeswaran for the Appellants.

H S.P. Anand-in- person for Respondent No. I.
U.0.1. v. S.P. ANAND [S.C. AGRAWAL, J] 1051
M.L. Bapna-in-person for Respondent No.2 A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.C. AGRAWAL, Leave granted.

This appeal arises out of a Writ Petition (Writ Petition No. 500 of 1'198) B
filed by the respondents [hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners'] in the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench. In the said Writ Petition the
petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

"In view of the submissions made above it is prayed that the R.No.
I herein be kindly directed to appoint INDORE as one of the places C
where the Hon'ble Supreme Court shall commence sittings w.e.f. first
working day after the summer vacations are over and the R.Nos. 2 &
3 be kindly directed to grant the needed approval as per Art. 130 of
the Constitution & extend all such funds as may be required to meet
the financial requirements recalling that absence of funds is no alibi
in law to provide sittings at INDORE to extend the benefits of Art. 32 D
which in itself is a Fundamental Right guaranteed by the Constitution
makers by placing it in Part III of the Constitution & such costs as
deemed fit be also kindly allowed with such other reliefs or moulded
reliefs as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court."

The said Writ Petition was heard by a learned single Judge of the High
E
Court who, on April 3, 1998, passed the following order:-"

Heard the Petitioners in persons.

Issue notice to the other side. P.F. within three days. The
Petitioners want a notice also be sent by Registered post A.D. to F
lessen up.

The prayer is accepted.

The notice also be sent by Regd. Post A.D. and also by humdast
over and over !he normal course." G
The appellants have filed this appeal to challenge the said order passed
by the High Court.

The learned Attorney General has urged that the Writ Petition of the
petitioners seeking the above mentioned relief is not maintainable inasmuch H
J

1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A as in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution the High
Court cannot give a direction to the Chief Justice of India with regard to place
or places where the Supreme Court should sit since this is a matter which falls
exclusively within the discretionary power vested in the Chief Justice of India
under Article 130 of the Constitution. It has also been urged that since the
B reliefs sought by the petitioners in the Writ Petition cannot be granted by the
High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution,
the High Court should have refused to entertain the Writ Petition and that
the learned Judge of the High Court was in error in entertaining the same and
passing the impugned order.

C In response to the notice issued by this Court the petitioners have
appeared in person. S.P. Anand, petitioner No. I, has addressed the Court in
support of the impugned order of the High Court in person and· the said
submissions were adopted by M.L. Bapna, petitioner No.2.

A preliminary objection was raised by the petitioners against the
D maintainability of this appeal. It has been urged that at the stage of preliminary
hearing of the writ petition the High Court has the discretion to either admit
it or dismiss it in limine or to entertain the same and before admitting the writ ~
petition issue notice to the respondents. In the present case, the High Court
has exercised this discretion by directing issue of notice to the respondents
E in the writ petition. The exercise of the said discretion by the High Court
cannot be interfered by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution
especially when no injury or loss has been caused by the impugned order
directing issue of notice to the respondents in the Writ Petition. The submission
is that in response to the notice the respondents to the writ petition can make
their submissions before the High Court and, if the High Court is satisfied that
F there is no merit in the writ petition, it would pass an appropriate order on ;.-
the writ petition. Reliance has been placed by the petitioners on the decision
of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Himansu Kumar Bose v. Jyoti
Prakash Mitter & Ors., AIR (1964) SC 1636.

G We do not find any merit in this contention. At the stage of preliminary
hearing of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the High
Court is required to consider whether on the basis of the averments contained
in the writ petition the petitioner therein is entitled to seek the relief prayed
for and such relief can be granted by the court in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the court is of the opinion that a
H primafacie case is made out for granting the relief sought in the writ petition,
U.O.l. v. S.P. ANAND [S.C. AGRAWAL, J.) 1053
rule nisi is issued calling upon the person or persons against whom the relief A
is sought to show cause why such relief should not be granted. But if the
court finds that no such prima facie case is made out, the writ petition has
to be dismissed without issuing notice to the person or persons against
whom the relief is sought. The object of placing a writ petition before the
court for preliminary hearing is to ensure that a writ petition which is frivolous B
in nature or in which no relief can be granted by the court in exercise of its
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution is dismissed at the threshold.

In Gunwant Kaur & Ors. v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda & Ors.,
AIR (1970) SC 802, this Court has laid down :-

"Rejection of a petition in limine will normally be justified, where the C
High Court is of he view that the petition is frivolous or because of
the nature of the claim made, dispute sought to be agitated, or that
the petition against the party against whom relief is claimed is not
maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is such that it would
be inappropriate to try it in the writ jurisdiction, or for analogous D
reasons." [p.805).

In Himansu Kumar Bose (supra) this Court was dealing with a case
involving di .,ute regarding the date of birth of a Judge of the High Court.
Or. the basis of the date of birth as determined by the Government of India,
the Chief Justice of the High Court had passed an' order whereby the said E
Judge was required to demit his office of Puisne Judge of the High Court with
effect from a particular date. The concerned Judge filed a writ petition
challenging the said order of the Chief Justice of the High Court. The said
Writ Petition was placed for preliminary hearing before a learned single Judge
of the High Court who held that there was no substance in the contentions F
-.._ sought to be raised in the writ petition and the writ petition was dismissed
in limine. The said order of the learned single Judge was reversed in appeal
by the High Court. The matter was first heard by a Division Bench of two
learned Judges of the High Court and there was difference of opinion between
them, one holding that the learned single Judge was justified in refusing to G
issue rule nisi, while the other taking a contrary view. The matter was
thereafter placed before a Special Bench of three learned Judges of the High
Court which held that the trial Judge was in error in refusing to issue a rule
nisi. The appeal was allowed and it was directed that rule nisi be issued in
the writ petition. The said order of the Special Bench of the High Court was
challenged before this Court. Dismissing the appeal, this Court said:- H
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A "Experience shows that in writ petitions filed in High Courts under
Art. 226 which raise arg4able issues of much less significance and '
importance, Rule Nisi is usually issued and speaking broadly, there
seems to be no justification for holding that in the present case
which undoubtedly raises questions of considerable importance, that
course should not be adopted." [pp. 1640, 1641)
B
In support of the appeal before this Court it was urged by the learned
Attorney General that four questions fell to be considered in the appeal and
answers to those four questions would be decisively against the petitioners
who had filed the writ petition and, therefore, refusal of the learned single
C Judge to issue rule nisi was justified. This Court, after examining the said
questions, came to the conclusion that the issues which fell to be considered
in the Writ Petition were, in a sense, triable issues and so it would be
inappropriate to dismiss the petition in limine. The decision in Himansu
Kumar Bose (supra) thus holds that a writ petition cannot be dismissed in
/imine if it raises triable. issues, but if it is found that the writ petition on
D its face does not raise any triable issue, it is liable to be dismissed in limine.
The question for consideration, therefore, is whether the Writ Petition
filed by the petitioners in the High Court raises a triable issue. The submission ~
of the learned Attorney General is that the Writ Petition does not raise any
E triable or arguable issue and was, therefore, liable to be dismissed in limine
and the High Court was in error in issuing notice on the Writ Petition to the
parties impleadcd as respondents therein. The petitioners have, on the other
hand, urged that the Writ Petition raises triable issues regarding the
interpretation of Article 130 of the Constitution and the High Court has
rightly entertained the Writ Petition and issued notice on it. These submissions
F of the learned counsel show that impugned order of the High Court cannot
be upheld unless it can be said that the Writ Petition raises an arguable ,,.-
question relating to the interpretation of Article 130 of the Constitution. As
to whether the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners raises an arguable issue
relating to the interpretation of Article 130 of the Constitution is a matter
G which can be agitated before this Court by the appellants in order to assail
the impugned order under Article 136 of the Constitution. We are, therefore,
unable to accept the preliminary objection raised by the petitioners and the
same is accordingly rejected.

We may now examine whether an arguable issue can be said to have
H been raised in the Writ Petition. After pursuing the Writ Petition, we are
U.0.1. v. S.P. ANAND (S.C. AGRAWAL. J.] 1055
constrained to say that it suffers from the same defects as were pointed out A
by this Court in SP. Anand, Indore v. HD. Deve Gowda & Ors., [1996] 6 SCC
734, which arose out of a writ petition filed by petitioner No. 1 herein, under
Article 32 of the Constitution. In that case, this Court has observed:-

"We cannot but observe that the averments in the petition are of a
rambling nature and lack cohesion. It is regrettable that a petition B
challenging the appointment to the high office of the Prime Minister
of this country should have been drafted in such a cavalier fashion
betraying lack of study, research and seriousness. The petition abounds
in casual and irrelevant averments ranging from cases on freedom of
speech to fraternity, from judicial independence to judicial review, C
from civil code to cow slaughter and so on and so forth." [pp.739, 740]

The present Writ Petition is no different. The President was impleaded
as a respondent to the Writ Petition notwithstanding the bar contained in
Article 361 of the Constitution since, according to the petitioners, the said bar
does not preclude the President from being joined as a party. Reference has D
been made to the decision of Special Bench of Seven Judges of this Court
in Shemsher Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. AIR, (1974) SC 2192, and the
correctness of the said decision has been assailed but the reason why the
said decision should be reviewed is not indicated. As regards Article 130 the
case of the petitioners is that the said provision postulates that the Supreme
Court should sit throughout the country and therefore at Indore also and that E
the omission to provide for sittings of Supreme Court at Indore or nearby
places, viz., Dewas, Uij.ain, Mahow, Dhar, is ex facie unconstitutional and
discriminatory. It is claimed that Article 130 contains a binding mandate which
cannot be disregarded. The petitioners have stated that the Writ Petition is
not in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, but it is for enforcement of the F
individual rights of the petitioners who have agricultural and urban properties
situate at and around Indore. It is stated that the omission to provide sittings
at Indore is causing hostile discrimination between citizens and residents of
New Delhi and those residing in and around Indore like the petitioners on
account of absence of availability of the judicial remedy under Article 32 of
the Constitution. Petitioner No. 2 is practising as an Advocate at Indore and G
his grievance is that omission to provide sittings of the Supreme Court at
Indore he is suffering loss of practice and resultant financial loss as compared
with the Advocates at New Delhi. At the stage of argumen\s petitioner No.
I also submitted written submissions.

Article 130 of the Constitution reads as follows:- H
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] 3 S.C.R.

A "I 30. Seat of Supreme Court.- The Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi
or in such other place or places, as the Chief Justice of India may,
with the approval of the President, from time to time, appoint."

The submission of the petitioners is that under Article 130 a mandatory
duty has been cast on the Chief Justice of India to appoint a place or places
B other than Delhi in various parts of the country for the seat of the Supreme
Court and that failure on the part of the Chief Justice of India to carry out
this mandatory duty can be enforced by seeking appropriate direction from
the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It has been urged that
the said power conferred on the Chief Justice of India under Article 130 is
C justiciable and is subject to judicial review by the courts. Reliance has been
placed on the observations in the majority judgment of Verma J. [as the
learned Chief Justice then was] and in the concurring judgment of Pandian
J. made in the context of Article 216 of the Constitution in Supreme Court
Advocates-on-Record Association & Ors. v. Union of India, [ 1993] 4 SCC 441.
It has been submitted that language used in Article 216 of the Constitution
D is very similar to that used in Article 130 and the said observations are,
therefore, applicable in the present case. This contention, in our opinion, is
without substance. Article 130 makes provision for seat of the Supreme Court
and lays down that the Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place
or places, as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President,
E from time to time, appoint. It is in the nature of an enabling provision which
empowers the Chief Justice of India, with the approval of the President, to
appoint place or places other than Delhi as the seat of the Supreme Court.
Article 130 cannot be construed as casting a mandatory obligation on the
Chief Justice of India to appoint a place or places other than Delhi as seat
of the Supreme Court. The question as to whether Supreme Court should sit
F at a place other than Delhi involves taking a policy decision by the Chief
Justice of India which must receive the approval of the President of India. If
after taking into consideration the relevant factors the Chief Justice of India
forms an opinion that the Supreme Court should sit at a particular place or
places other than Delhi, he has to seek the approval of the President for the
G proposal and, if the President approves the proposal, an order appointing the
place or places where the Supreme Court shall sit is passed. Exercise of the
power under Article 130 thus postulates (i) a decision by the Chief Justice
of India as to whether the Supreme Court should sit at a particular place ?r
places other than Delhi; and (ii) approval of the President to the proposal
made by the Chief Justice of India for appointing the particular place or places
H for the sitting of the Supreme Court. Thus making of an order under Article
U.0.1. v. S.P. ANAND [S.C. AGRA WAL. .I.] 1057
I 30 oft 1e Constitution providing for sitting of the Supreme Court at a place A
other than Delhi requires in the first place a decision by the Chief Justice of
India in. that regard and thereafter the approval of the proposal of the Chief
Justice of India by the President on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
No court can give a directioa either to the Chief Justice of India or the
President to exercise the power conferred under Article '130 and to pass an B
order appointing Indore anc'/or any other place or places in India as the seat'
seats for the sitting of the Supreme Court as sought by the petitioners in the
Writ Petition.

In this context, it may be mentioned that a question regarding
justiciability can arise only an respect of an action that has been taken under C
a provision of the Constitution or a law. Since no action has been taken in
the present case under Article 130 of the Constitution, the question of
justiciability of such action does not arise in the present case. We, therefore,
do no< consider it necessary to go into the question whether an order passed
under Article 130 of the Constitution would be justiciable.
D
In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association & Ors. (supra)
this Court, while dealing with the question regarding fixation of Judges'
strength in the High Courts, has referred to the provisions of Article 216 of
the Constitution and, having regard to need for speedy disposal of cases and
to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, it was held E
that fixation of Judges' strength is justiciable and that, if it is shown that the
existing strength is inadequate to provide speedy justice to people in spite
of the optimum efficiency of the existing strength, a direction can be issued
to assess the felt need and fix the strength of the Judges commensurate with
the need to fulfil the State obligation of providing speedy justice. The
observations made in the context of Article 216 have, however, no bearing on F
--..... the construction of Article 130 of the Constitution.

The petitioners have also invited our attention to the answer given by
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar to a query by Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor during the course
of debates in the Constituent Assembly. The said query and the answer to G
it, as contained in the report of the Constitutional Assembly Debates dated
May 27, 1949, are reproduced as under:-

"Query: May I seek a small clarification from Dr. Ambedkar? Will it be
open to the Supreme Court so long as it is sitting in Delhi, to have
a circuit court anywhere else in this Court simultaneously? H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) 3 S.C.R.

A Answer: Yes, certainly. A circuit court is only a Bench."

We are unable to appreciate how the aforesaid answer given by Dr.
Ambedkar lends support to the submissions of the petitioners. In the said
answer Dr. Ambedkar has only stated that it would be open to the Supreme
B Court, so long as It is sitting in Delhi, to have a circuit court anywhere else
in the country simultaneously and that such circuit court would only be a
Bench. There is nothing in the said answer of Dr. Ambedkar which may
suggest that a mandatory obligation has been cast on the Chief Justice of
India and the President to set up benches of the Supreme Court at a place
other than Delhi.
c
On this view of Article 130 of the Constitution the whole edifice of the
case set up by the petitioners in the Writ Petition falls to the ground. We,
therefore, arrive at the conclusion that the relief sought by the petitioners in
the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners in the High Court could not be
D granted by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution and the said Writ Petition could not be entertained. The
issuing of a notice to the respondents in the Writ Petition would serve no
useful purpose and would only distract the respondents from performing their ,
other important functions. In our opinion, this was a case which should have
E been dismissed in limine and the High Court was in error in issuing a notice
to the respondents to defend the Writ Petition.

Deprecating the growing tendency to make use of the court as a forum
to seek some cheap publicity, this Court has said:-

F "We regret to say that seeing one's name in newspapers everyday has
lately become the worst intoxicant and the number of people who
have become victims of it is increasing day be day". See: Mithilesh
Kumar v. R. Venkataraman & Ors., [1988) I SCR 525

At the stage of preliminary hearing of a writ petition the High Court,
G before issuing a notice to the respondent, has to guard against the court
being used as a forum for gaining publicity by the person or persons moving
the writ petition. The need for such caution is greater when a person holding
a high constitutional office is impleaded as a respondent in the writ petition
or when matters of policy are involved. In the instant case, we are constrained
H to say that in passing the impugned order issuing notice on the Writ Petition
U.0.1. v. S.P. ANAND [S.C. AGRA WAL, J.] 1059
ti e learned Judge of the High Court has failed to bestow the requisite care A
and circumspection. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the impugned order.

The appeal is accordingly allowed, the impugned order dated April 3,
1998 is set aside and the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed.

- No order as to costs.

V.S.S. Appeal allowed.
B