Constitution Doesn't Prescribe Any Reservation Or Adequate Representation Of All Categories In HC Judges' Appointment: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Bench also clarified the misconception of the office of a High Court Judge being akin to a civil post under the executive. The Court stated that the said stance was “far from reality” as the office of a High Court Judge was a Constitutional office, which was filled up solely by the procedure prescribed in the Constitution and not elsewhere.

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Amar Nath (Kesharwani) observed, “It is seen that neither the Constitution nor the Judge-made law as aforesaid prescribe for any reservation or adequate/proportionate representation of all categories in the process of appointment. Thus, providing for any such reservation or adequate/proportionate representation of all categories, would not only be dehors to the Constitutional provision but also the Judge made law vide aforesaid decisions of Apex Court. Thus, this ground of petitioner also does not hold any water.”

Advocate Uday Kumar represented the petitioner, while Dy. A.G. B.D. Singh appeared for the respondent.

The petitioner, an advocate, argued that despite being eligible under Article 217(2)(b) of the Constitution which required a minimum of ten years of practice as an advocate, he was not considered for appointment as a judge. He contended that there was an over-representation of the forward class within the collegium and among the appointed judges.

The petition also challenged the legality and validity of a notification issued regarding the appointment of the Judges of the Madhya Pradesh High Court by the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law & Justice (MoL&J) by the President of India under Article 217(1) of the Constitution.

The Court explained that since the Constitution did not prescribe issuance of any advertisement or conduction of any selection by way of written test or viva voce, the procedure “being followed presently cannot be found fault with.”

“The collegium ows (sic) it’s existence and legal sanctity to Judge-made law which under Article 141 of the Constitution is the law of the land and is binding not only on every court but also the executive and the legislature,” the Court remarked.

Regarding the claim that the collegium at the High Court and Supreme Court had a large representation of forward class (unreserved category) of Judges, the Bench stated that “the Constitution not prescribing for any reservation or adequate or proportionate representation of all categories, any such attempt to accede to the prayer of petitioner would amount to violating the constitutional provisions.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Maruti Sondhiya v. Union of India & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Order