Judiciary – Supreme Court Declines Plea Over Himachal Judge Appointments
Judiciary – The Supreme Court on Monday declined to examine a petition filed by a judicial officer from Himachal Pradesh who questioned the recommendation process for appointments to the state High Court. The court observed that interference in collegium-related decisions through judicial proceedings would not be appropriate.
Supreme Court Emphasises Limits of Judicial Review
A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi made it clear that the selection of judges is largely based on the assessment and satisfaction of the collegium. The judges noted that courts cannot direct a collegium on whom to recommend or how to evaluate candidates for elevation to a High Court.
During the hearing, the bench remarked that allowing such challenges could lead to scrutiny of internal collegium deliberations, something the court was not willing to permit. According to the judges, opening judicial proceedings into collegium decisions could create wider complications for both High Court and Supreme Court collegiums.
Petitioner Raised Concerns Over Seniority
The petitioner approached the apex court claiming that officers who were junior to him had been recommended for appointment as judges of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. Representing the petitioner, senior advocate Balbir Singh argued that his client was the senior-most judicial officer in the state and still had nearly a decade of service remaining.
However, the court observed that seniority alone does not automatically create a right to be recommended for elevation. The bench indicated that several factors may be considered by the collegium while evaluating candidates for judicial appointments.
No Evidence of Rejection, Says Court
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court pointed out that there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner’s candidature had been rejected by the High Court collegium. The bench stated that the absence of a recommendation should not immediately be interpreted as a rejection.
The judges suggested that the petitioner’s name could still be under consideration or that a decision regarding his candidature may have been deferred. They advised patience, noting that the sequence of events presented before the court reflected that his case had been considered at some stage.
Withdrawal of Petition Allowed
After the bench indicated its unwillingness to entertain the matter, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the plea. He requested liberty to pursue other remedies before the appropriate authority of the High Court, either through administrative channels or through any available judicial process.
Accepting the request, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition while granting the liberty sought by the petitioner. This allows him to approach the competent authority if he chooses to pursue the matter further.
Recent Collegium Recommendations
The case arose against the backdrop of recent recommendations for appointments to the Himachal Pradesh High Court. On June 2, the Supreme Court collegium approved the proposal to appoint three judicial officers—Chirag Bhanu Singh, Bhupesh Sharma and Yogesh Jaswal—as judges of the High Court.
The bench observed that these recommendations had already received approval from the Supreme Court collegium. It reiterated that the petitioner’s candidature had not been formally rejected and that the selection process may still be ongoing in relation to his name.
The court ultimately maintained that issues concerning collegium assessments and recommendations are primarily administrative and involve subjective evaluation, making judicial intervention inappropriate in such circumstances.