Summary
Writ petitions under Article 32 challenged the Supreme Court Collegium's recommendation to appoint an advocate as a Judge of the Madras High Court on account of her past public statements. The Supreme Court dismissed them at the admission stage: under Mahesh Chandra Gupta, M. Manohar Reddy and the Second Judges case, judicial review of appointments under Article 217 is confined to eligibility and lack of effective consultation and does not extend to suitability, the Collegium weighs intelligence inputs, government comments and the views of Judges conversant with the High Court, a political background or past criticism of policies has not been an absolute bar, the petitioners' own representation was before the Collegium which did not recall its decision, and certiorari or mandamus would substitute the Court's opinion for the Collegium's on merit.
Issues
- Whether the Supreme Court in exercise of judicial review can quash, or direct the Collegium to reconsider, a recommendation for appointment of a High Court Judge on the ground that the person recommended is unsuitable.
Provisions considered
- Article 217(1) and (2), Constitution of IndiaArticle 217(2) prescribes eligibility, an objective threshold open to judicial review, while Article 217(1) prescribes the consultative process in which fitness, integrity and competence are evaluated; suitability so assessed is excluded from judicial review, which lies only for lack of eligibility or lack of effective consultation, not for the content of consultation. (¶¶ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
- Article 51A, Constitution of IndiaOn taking oath a judge pledges to uphold the Constitution, and every citizen and more so every judge is obliged to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood transcending religious and sectional diversities; a judge's conduct and decisions are judged daily in open court and at confirmation. (¶¶ 8, 12)
Held
- The Collegium of the High Court's recommendation is followed by intelligence inputs, government comments and written opinions of Supreme Court Judges conversant with the High Court before the Supreme Court Collegium takes a final call; persons with political backgrounds or who have criticised policies have been elevated, such matters being relevant but not absolute bars, and the argument that the facts were unknown to the Collegium is rejected since the petitioners' representation of 1 February 2023 was before it. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9)
- Issuing certiorari to quash the recommendation or mandamus to reconsider it would contravene the binding decisions in the Second Judges case, Special Reference No. 1 of 1998 and Mahesh Chandra Gupta by evaluating and substituting the Collegium's assessment of suitability; Kumar Padma Prasad concerned want of eligibility and cannot be extended to suitability. (¶¶ 10, 11)
Result
Writ Petitions (C) Nos. 147 and 148 of 2023 dismissed at the admission stage, the Court declining to issue notice.