Summary
On a writ petition by the two seniormost District Judges of Himachal Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that a challenge confined to lack of effective consultation in the collegium process is maintainable, and that the Chief Justice of a High Court cannot alone reconsider a proposal for elevation remitted by the Supreme Court Collegium; since the reconsideration was the Chief Justice's individual decision, it was vitiated and the High Court Collegium was directed to reconsider the petitioners' names collectively.
Issues
- Whether a writ petition questioning the manner in which the High Court reconsidered the petitioners' names for elevation is maintainable given the limited scope of judicial review in judicial appointments.
- Whether reconsideration of a proposal for elevation to a High Court must be made collectively by the High Court Collegium or may be made by the Chief Justice of the High Court individually.
Provisions considered
- Article 217(1) and (2), Constitution of IndiaFollowing Mahesh Chandra Gupta, the Court noted that Article 217(1) concerns suitability, a subjective matter, while Article 217(2) concerns eligibility, an objective one; eligibility and lack of effective consultation are open to judicial review, but suitability and the content of consultation are not. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
- Article 32, Constitution of IndiaThe petition under Article 32 was held maintainable because it sought only scrutiny of whether effective consultation occurred, not of the merits or suitability of the officers. (¶¶ 2, 16, 17, 31)
Held
- Drawing on the Second Judges case, the Third Judges case, Mahesh Chandra Gupta and Anna Mathews, the Court summarised that lack of effective consultation and eligibility fall within judicial review, while suitability, and hence the content of consultation, is non-justiciable. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
- Calling for the Supreme Court Collegium's resolution only to determine factually whether effective consultation took place does not involve review of merits or suitability; the writ petition, confined to that limited scrutiny, was maintainable. (¶¶ 16, 17, 31)
- Appointment of judges to a superior court is a collaborative and participatory process reflecting the collective wisdom of all collegium members; plurality is an in-built check against arbitrariness and supports transparency and accountability. (¶¶ 18, 20, 21, 22, 23)
- A Supreme Court Collegium resolution for reconsideration addressed to the Chief Justice of the High Court does not, by its wording, permit the Chief Justice to act alone; the Supreme Court Collegium does not sit in appeal over the High Court Collegium, and recommendation or reconsideration can only be made by the High Court Collegium acting collectively. (¶¶ 25, 31)
- Here there was no collective consultation among the Chief Justice and the two seniormost judges of the High Court; the Chief Justice's letter on the petitioners' suitability was an individual decision, inconsistent with the Second and Third Judges cases, and stood vitiated procedurally and substantially. (¶¶ 26, 27, 30)
- A representation by one petitioner to the Chief Justice of India, alleged to be contemptuous, was an expression of hurt and not contemptuous; the Court also noted the need to balance transparency with confidentiality of sensitive information in appointments. (¶¶ 28, 29)
Result
Writ petition allowed; the High Court Collegium directed to reconsider the petitioners' names for elevation in terms of the Supreme Court Collegium resolution of 04.01.2024 and the Law Minister's letter of 16.01.2024.