Gujarat High Court Quashes Single Judge’s Remarks on Registry Over CCTV Delay | Reaffirms Chief Justice’s Sole Administrative Authority Under Article 229
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Gujarat Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice R.T. Vachhani quashed an order passed by a Single Judge that had directed monitoring and installation of CCTV cameras in the Registry of the High Court. The Bench categorically held that under the constitutional framework, the Chief Justice is the supreme authority on the administrative side and that puisne Judges cannot assume such administrative powers. The Court directed deletion of strictures made against the Registry and clarified that the Chief Justice has already taken cognizance of the matter and that the process of installation is under implementation. The Letters Patent Appeal was accordingly allowed, and the monitoring by the Single Judge on the administrative matter of CCTV installation was stayed.
The matter originated from an appeal arising against an order dated 18.08.2025 passed by a Single Judge in a writ petition relating to service disputes of teachers. In that order, the learned Single Judge made observations on the Registry of the High Court concerning installation of CCTV cameras in certain sections of the institution. The Division Bench noted that the appeal was necessitated since the Registrar (IT) of the High Court called upon them to examine the administrative supremacy of the Chief Justice of the Court.
The background of the issue traces back to proceedings in Special Criminal Application No. 996 of 2020, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In that case, while hearing a quashing petition, the Single Judge, by an order dated 08.11.2023, had taken cognizance of the absence of CCTV cameras in parts of the Registry and directed their installation at the earliest possible time.
A status report was also ordered to be placed on record. Subsequently, after a change in roster, the matter came before another Single Judge who, by order dated 16.02.2024, disposed of the main quashing petition. That order recorded that since the tender process had already been initiated for CCTV installation and the Registrar General’s report indicated that work orders would be issued after tenders were finalized, the petition need not be kept pending only for the purpose of monitoring the installation. The Court in that order stated: “for the purpose of installing the CCTV cameras as directed by this Court, the matter need not be kept pending as it is a separate issue on administrative side relating to installation of CCTV cameras as directed.”
Despite that, when the writ petitions relating to service jurisprudence of teachers were considered by a Single Judge, directions and strictures regarding CCTV installation in the Registry were again issued. The Division Bench recorded that such directions, passed while adjudicating writ petitions pertaining to service disputes, amalgamated distinct issues outside the assigned roster. The Bench noted that reports were already being sought regarding the status of CCTV installation and the matter was under active implementation.
The Division Bench also recorded the statutory and constitutional framework concerning the powers of the Chief Justice. Referring to Article 229 of the Constitution of India and the precedent of the Supreme Court in High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan vs. Ramesh Chand Paliwal & Anr., (1998) 3 SCC 72, the Court elaborated that the Chief Justice is the supreme authority in matters relating to appointments, administration, and conditions of service of officers and servants of the High Court.
The Bench observed that Article 229 clearly delineates that administrative control vests in the Chief Justice and not in puisne Judges, and that any attempt to assume such powers would transgress constitutional discipline. The Court quoted the Supreme Court’s cautionary words that Judges must act as “hermits” whose mission is “to supply light and not heat” and must work in tranquillity without prematurely aspiring to exercise administrative powers.
Thus, while commending the concern of the Single Judge for ensuring CCTV installation, the Division Bench held that such directions on the administrative side could not be issued in judicial proceedings of service disputes. The Registry’s functioning, the Court noted, is under the direct authority of the Chief Justice, who is already seized of the matter.
The Division Bench recorded its observations extensively with reference to constitutional provisions and precedent. The Court observed: “By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has made stigmatic observations on the Registry of this Court on the issue relating to the installation of the CCTV cameras in the Registry of this Institution. For the sake of the reputation of the Registry, we are not referring to the observations in detail.”
It was further stated: “After the change in roster, the said matter was placed before another learned Single Judge, who was assigned the roster of quashing, and the same was disposed of vide order dated 16.02.2024… Since the process has already been initiated and tenders are already invited and the report of the Registrar General shows that the work order will be issued for the said purpose after tenders are finalized, in the considered view of this Court, the matter need not be kept pending.”
On the jurisdictional aspect, the Bench stated: “The learned Single Judge, by passing the impugned order, has travelled beyond the roster assigned by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. We may at this stage, deal with the scope of administrative control of the Chief Justice of the High Court.”
Quoting the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramesh Chand Paliwal, the Court recorded: “This Article makes the Chief Justice of the High Court the supreme authority in the matter of appointments of the High Court officers and servants… Just as the Chief Justice of India is the supreme authority in the matter of Supreme Court Establishment including its office staff and officers, so also the Chief Justice of the High Court is the sole authority in these matters and no other Judge or officer can legally usurp those administrative functions or power.”
The Court further cited: “Under the constitutional scheme, Chief Justice is the supreme authority and the other Judges, so far as officers and servants of the High Court are concerned, have no role to play on the administrative side… Their mission is to supply light and not heat. This is necessary so that their latent desire to run the High Court administration may not sprout before time, at least, in some cases.”
Based on these principles, the Division Bench observed: “Though, we commend the concern expressed by the learned Single Judge relating to the issue of installation of the CCTV cameras, with due respect, we hold that the learned Single Judge in his judicial capacity lacks the authority to command the Registry in any way on the issue, which exclusively lies under the domain and control of The Hon’ble the Chief Justice, as doing so would go against the authority, control and supremacy of The Hon’ble the Chief Justice.”
The Court issued clear directives in the matter. It ordered: “Hence, the order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition is quashed and set aside.” It further directed that “The Hon’ble the Chief Justice is already apprised of the status of installation of CCTV cameras in the Registry of the High Court, and the same is under active implementation.”
The Division Bench ordered: “The strictures passed against the Registry are directed to be deleted. We hereby stay further monitoring by the learned Single Judge on the issue of installation of the CCTV cameras in the Registry in Special Criminal Application No.996 of 2020.”
It further clarified: “It is clarified that the writ petition may be listed before the Bench assigned such roster and to be heard. Letters Patent Appeal is allowed accordingly.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Mr. Shalin Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hamesh C. Naidu
For the Respondents: Mr. Vyom H. Shah
Case Title: High Court of Gujarat vs. Babubhai Sampatbhai Pateliya & Ors.
Case Number: R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1035 of 2025 in R/Special Civil Application No. 23158 of 2019 with Civil Application (for Stay) No. 1 of 2025
Bench: Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice R.T. Vachhani
