M. MANOHAR REDDY vs UNION OF INDIA .

The Supreme Court, while adjudicating a writ petition under Article 32, held that the appointment of respondent No.3 as a judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was invalid due to the vitiated consultation process, as he was a proclaimed offender at the time of his appointment. The Court emphasized the necessity of transparency and integrity in the judicial appointment process, particularly highlighting the concealment of criminal proceedings during his enrolment as an advocate. Consequently, the Court quashed the appointment and directed the Bar Council to cancel his enrolment as an advocate.