The Supreme Court observed that, in matters involving appointment of judges, the lack of effective consultation amongst the members of the Collegium and 'elegibility' of candidates fall within purview of Judicial review.

This decision was issued in a Writ Petition challenging the procedural adherence of the High Court Collegium in reconsidering certain judicial appointments.

The Bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, while dealing with a Writ Petition filed by the two senior-most district and Sessions Judges of Himachal Pradesh, observed:" ‘Lack of effective consultation’ and ‘eligibility’ falls within the scope of judicial review. ii) ‘Suitability’ is non-justiciable and resultingly, the ‘content of consultation’ falls beyond the scope of judicial review. "

The Writ Petition arose when concerns were raised about whether the High Court Collegium followed the procedural requirement of "effective consultation" while reconsidering judicial candidates. It was argued that the Chief Justice of the High Court had not received the Supreme Court’s resolution dated January 4, 2024, which was central to the reconsideration process. The petitioners contended that examining this resolution was essential to determine whether proper consultation had taken place.

During the proceedings, the Court had allowed the respective counsel to peruse the resolution to ascertain whether the consultation process adhered to the procedural requirements. The Court emphasized that this scrutiny was strictly limited to verifying whether effective consultation occurred, without delving into the merits or suitability of the judicial candidates.

The Bench clarified that while judicial review cannot address the merits of the Collegium's decision-making, it is within the court’s authority to ensure that the consultation process, a crucial procedural element in judicial appointments, was properly conducted.

"The aforesaid re-consideration resolution was requisitioned only for factual determination as to whether ‘effective consultation’ was made, in terms of the resolution of the SC Collegium. This scrutiny has nothing to do with the ‘merits’ or the ‘suitability’ of the officers in question but to verify whether ‘effective consultation’ was made. Such scrutiny is permissible within the limited scope of judicial review as discussed before. Therefore, the present writ petition for this limited scrutiny is found to be maintainable," it said.

While pronouncing the Judgement, the Court also held, "The Chief Justice of a High Court cannot individually reconsider a recommendation and it can only be done by the High Court Collegium acting collectively."

"In light of the above, the High Court Collegium should now reconsider the names of Mr. Chirag Bhanu Singh and Mr. Arvind Malhotra for elevation as Judges of the High Court, following the Supreme Court Collegium decision dated 4th January,2024 and the Law Minister’s letter dated 16th January,2024. It is ordered accordingly," the Court ordered.

Cause Title: Chirag Bhanu Singh & Anr. v. High Court of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. [Neutral Citation No. 2024 INSC 660]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Arvind P. Datar

Respondent: Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Justice Hrishikesh RoyJustice Prashant Kumar MishraHimachal Pradesh High CourtElevationDistrict Judges

Sukriti Mishra