NEW DELHI: In a judgment, the Supreme Court on Friday ruled that the High Court Chief Justice cannot not individually reject a judicial officer's candidature for appointment as HC Judge.
The HC CJ cannot reconsider a recommendation and it can be done by the High Court Collegium collectively.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra held that 'lack of effective consultation’ and ‘eligibility’ falls within the scope of judicial review. However, ‘suitability’ is non-justiciable and resultingly, the ‘content of consultation’ falls beyond the scope of judicial review.
The court asked the Himachal HC Collegium led by CJ to consider the names of two district judges -- Chirag Bhanu Singh and Arvind Malhotra -- for selection as HC judges, in terms of SC Collegium's recommendation of January 4, 2024 and the Law Minister's letter of January 16, 2024.
Their names were referred to HC by the SC Collegium for reconsideration, but HC Collegium has not considered it.
The court found the decision communicated by the Chief Justice of the High Court by a letter of March 6, 2024 "appears to be an individual decision" and is "vitiated both procedurally and substantially".
"There was no collective consultation and deliberations by the members of the High Court Collegium," the bench said.
The bench also relied upon the Supreme Court's judgements including 'Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association Vs Union of India' (1993) (Second Judges Case), to hold two judges' writ petition questioning their non consideration for elevation of the High Court judges as maintainable.
"The absence of consultation amongst the members of the Collegium would be within the limited purview of judicial review," the bench said.
"The process of judicial appointments to a superior court is not the prerogative of a single individual. Instead, it is a collaborative and participatory process involving all Collegium members," the bench said.
The court did not agree to a contention by senior advocate S Muralidhar, appearing for the HP High Court that Chief Justice of the High Court can individually reconsider a candidate based on how resolutions are worded.
The court said the language of resolution by itself cannot be understood as permitting the Chief Justice of the High Court to act on his own, in matters of recommendation or even reconsideration, for elevation to the High Court.
"The underlying principle is that the process of appointment of judges must reflect the collective wisdom that draws from diverse perspectives. Such a process ensures that principles of transparency and accountability are maintained," the bench said.
It was contended a letter was written by one of the petitioners to the CJI with objectionable remarks directed at the Supreme Court Collegium.
The bench, however, said, it is definitely an expression of hurt by the judicial officer, but will not bring the letter into the contemptuous category.
"There is also a need to protect certain sensitive information in matters involving appointment of judges. While transparency is necessary to ensure fairness and accountability, it must be carefully balanced with the need to maintain confidentiality. Disclosing sensitive information would compromise not only the privacy of the individual but also the integrity of the process," the bench said.
The HP HC by registrar general had submitted its response in a "sealed cover" to the Supreme Court, defending the decision of the Chief Justice.
![Order to appoint One Man Committee of Justice (Retd.) Lokur for the Prevention of Stubble Burning Kept in Abeyance by SC itself [READ ORDER]](/secure/uploads/2020/10/lj_8849_Order_to_appoint.jpeg)
