Court: Supreme Court of India
Case Number: Writ Petition (C) No. 312 of 2024
Date of Decision: 16/04/2024
Bench: Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Parties:
– Petitioners: Chirag Bhanu Singh and Arvind Malhotra
– Respondents: High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Registrar General of the Himachal Pradesh High Court
– Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Senior Counsel
– Counsel for Respondents: Dr. S. Muralidhar, Senior Counsel
Introduction
This case involves a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by the petitioners, two senior-most District and Sessions Judges of Himachal Pradesh. The petition challenges the recommendation of junior officers for elevation as judges of the Himachal Pradesh High Court while ignoring the directions for reconsideration issued by the Supreme Court Collegium in a resolution dated 4th January 2024. The petitioners seek a writ of certiorari to quash the recommendations made by the Himachal Pradesh High Court Collegium and a writ of mandamus directing the reconsideration of their elevation as per the Supreme Court Collegium’s instructions.
Facts
1. Initial Recommendation (2022): On 6th December 2022, the petitioners’ names were recommended by the Himachal Pradesh High Court Collegium for elevation as High Court judges.
2. Supreme Court Collegium Decision (2023): On 12th July 2023, the Supreme Court Collegium deferred consideration of the petitioners’ elevation. However, on 4th January 2024, the Supreme Court Collegium remitted the matter for reconsideration by the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
3. Communication from Law Minister: The Minister of Law and Justice communicated the Supreme Court Collegium’s decision to the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court on 16th January 2024, requesting fresh recommendations for the petitioners.
4. New Recommendations Ignoring Petitioners: Despite the Supreme Court Collegium’s direction, the Himachal Pradesh High Court Collegium recommended two other judicial officers for elevation on 23rd April 2024, without reconsidering the petitioners’ names.
Issues Raised
The primary issues before the court are:
1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition: Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 32, given the limited scope of judicial review in matters concerning judicial appointments.
2. Role of High Court Collegium: Whether the reconsideration of judicial appointments for elevation must be done collectively by the High Court Collegium or if the Chief Justice of the High Court can act individually in this process.
Submissions
Arguments for the Petitioners:
– Seniority and Service Record: The petitioners, being the seniormost judicial officers with unblemished records, claim a right to have their names reconsidered for elevation.
– Effective Consultation: Mr. Datar, Senior Counsel for the petitioners, argued that the collective consideration of the High Court Collegium is essential, and a decision taken solely by the Chief Justice is not in accordance with the Supreme Court Collegium’s resolution.
– Maintainability: The petitioners argue that judicial review is permissible on the grounds of lack of effective consultation, citing past judgments, including Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India (2010).
Arguments for the Respondents:
– Limited Scope of Judicial Review: Dr. Muralidhar, Senior Counsel for the respondents, argued that the writ petition is not maintainable since it pertains to the ‘suitability’ of the petitioners, a matter beyond judicial review.
– Chief Justice’s Discretion: The respondents contend that the Supreme Court Collegium’s resolution did not explicitly mandate the reconsideration by the entire High Court Collegium, thereby permitting the Chief Justice to act individually.
Judicial Precedents
– Second Judges Case: The Supreme Court has previously held that judicial review in matters of appointment is limited to issues of eligibility and lack of consultation with constitutional functionaries.
– Mahesh Chandra Gupta Case: This case established the distinction between ‘eligibility’ (subject to judicial review) and ‘suitability’ (beyond judicial review).
– Anna Mathews Case: The Court reaffirmed that judicial review cannot extend to reconsidering the decisions of the Collegium regarding suitability for judicial appointments.
Court’s Consideration
The Court, having issued notice only to the Registrar General of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, received a sealed report that revealed the Supreme Court Collegium’s resolution dated 4th January 2024 was never received by the High Court. It also noted correspondence between the Chief Justice of the High Court and the Supreme Court, indicating possible compliance with the resolution.
Conclusion
The case presents critical questions regarding the role of the High Court Collegium and the scope of judicial review in judicial appointments. The petitioners’ seniority and the alleged lack of effective consultation are central to the dispute. The Court is yet to deliver its judgment on whether the writ petition is maintainable and whether the reconsideration for elevation must involve collective deliberation by the High Court Collegium.
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India
