HC Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Subjective Satisfaction Of Supreme Court Collegium In The Matter Of Appointment Of Judges: Delhi HC

The Court was hearing a letters patent appeal challenging the judgment whereby the Writ Petition filed by the appellant, was dismissed with costs on the ground that the appellant had no locus standi to maintain the Writ Petition. 

The bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “publication of reasons for rejection will be detrimental to the interests and standing of people whose names have been recommended by the High Courts, as the collegium deliberates and decides on the basis of information which is private to the individual being considered. Such information, if made public, will have the effect of stifling the appointment process.”

It is the case of the Appellant that he has locus to file the Writ Petition as he is a resident of Delhi and his cases have been pending in Courts due to lack of appointment of judges. He stated that the lack of judges in High Courts also results in a lack of supervision of District Courts, which affects the functioning of the District Courts. His Grievance before the Writ Court was that his case before the District Court has not been decided till date. He said that the Supreme Court Collegium should provide reasons to the High Court Collegium for rejecting its recommendations.

The Court said that the Single Judge had correctly noted that vacancies in the High Court have no bearing on the pendency of cases in the District Courts and the Judge has rightly held that the appellant has no locus to file the Writ Petition.

“In fact, by the end of this year, the actual strength of the District judiciary is virtually going to be at par with its sanctioned strength.”, the Court said.

While explaining the law with respect to the appointment of High Court and Supreme Court judges the Court said, “The Supreme Court has repeatedly drawn a distinction between eligibility and suitability of a person to be appointed as a Judge of the High Court. Eligibility is an objective factor which is determined by applying the parameters or qualifications specified in Article 217(2), whereas, fitness and suitability of a person is evaluated in the consultative process.”

The Court mentioned the decision of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Others v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 41, where according to the Court the Supreme Court has held that the scope of judicial review of appointment of judges is limited insofar as the primacy of judiciary in the process introduces the judicial element in the process, and is itself a sufficient justification for the absence of the need for further judicial review of these decisions, which is ordinarily needed as a check against possible executive excess or arbitrariness.

The Court noted that the Supreme Court further held that the element of plurality of judges in the formation of the opinion of the Chief Justice of India, effective consultation in writing and prevailing norms to regulate the area of discretion are sufficient checks against arbitrariness.

The Court said that the appellant has failed to understand that the appointment of a Judge to the High Court or Supreme Court is an integrated, consultative and non-adversarial process, which cannot be challenged in a court of law except on the ground of want of consultation with the named constitutional functionaries or lack of any condition of eligibility in the case of an appointment, or of a transfer being made without the recommendation of the Chief Justice of India.

Accordingly, the Court held that the Single Judge was right that the Court cannot sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the Supreme Court collegium.

Finally, the Court dismissed the Letter Patent Appeal.

Cause Title: CA Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Supreme Court Of India Through Secretary General (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4930-DB)

Click here to read/download Judgment