“Publicity Interest Litigation”: Delhi HC Dismisses Plea Seeking Detailed Reason For Recommendations By SC Collegium

The Bench imposed costs of Rs.25k on the Petitioner which was directed to be deposited with the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund. The Court called such a petition a “complete waste of judicial time” as there was no locus for its maintainability.

A Single Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed, “This petition is purely a Publicity Interest Litigation. The only personal interest of the Petitioner as stated in the petition is that the Petitioner has a case pending in Rohini District Court, Delhi. This Court is at a loss to understand how the delay in disposal of his case in the District Court is any way connected to the reliefs sought in the instant writ petition. The Petitioner has not given any reason as to how he is a victim, and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition is only a Publicity Interest Litigation.”

The petitioner approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for the Supreme Court Collegium to provide detailed reasons for norms and qualifications considered for High Court judge appointments. The Petition also sought the publication of monthly data on pending and disposed recommendations for High Court judge appointments.

The petitioner highlighted the “extremely disturbing” high rate of rejection of recommendations by the Supreme Court Collegium which rose from 4.38% in 2021 to 35.29% in 2023. He attributed this to a communication gap between the Apex Court and the High Courts regarding the criteria for appointment.

However, the High Court found the averments made in the petition to be incoherent and stated that it was a “Publicity Interest Litigation” only serving the personal interest of the Petitioner. The Bench noted that the petitioner’s claim of being a victim of delayed case disposal in the Rohini District Court had no direct connection to the reliefs sought in the current writ petition.

“This Court asked the Petitioner as to whether he was willing to withdraw the writ petition and file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) which the Petitioner refused on the ground that he is a victim of the delay in disposal of his case,” the Court remarked.

The Court explained, “The requisite qualifications for being appointed as a Judge of the High Court are laid down under Article 217 of the Constitution of India and the Collegium of the Hon’ble Apex Court takes into consideration several factors before accepting the recommendations of the Collegium of the High Court. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the Collegium of the Hon’ble Apex Court.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: CA Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Supreme Court of India (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4544)

Click here to read/download the Judgment