New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Himachal Pradesh High Court collegium to reconsider the names of two senior-most district and sessions judges for elevation as judges of the high court.
While pronouncing the judgment, a bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra said there was no collective consultation and deliberation by the members of the high court collegium. The apex court said consideration of a recommendation could only be done by a high court collegium, acting collectively, and the high court chief justice could not individually reconsider a recommendation.
The apex court said, “The high court collegium should now reconsider the names of Chirag Bhanu Singh and Arvind Malhotra for elevation as judges of the high court, following the Supreme Court collegium decision dated January 4, 2024…”. The detailed judgment on the matter will be uploaded later in the day.
The apex court’s judgment came on a petition filed by the two senior-most district and sessions judges. The judges had alleged that their merit and seniority were not considered by the collegium of the high court in the selection process of names for high court judgeship.
During the hearing, the counsel, representing the petitioners argued that their judgments were not called for while evaluating the suitability and eligibility of judicial officers for elevation.
“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," said the bench, in its judgment today.
“There was no collective consultation and deliberations by the members of the High Court Collegium. The decision of the Chief Justice of the High Court, on the suitability of the two petitioners as conveyed in his letter dated 6th March 2024, appears to be an individual decision. The same therefore stands vitiated both procedural and substantially," said the bench.
The bench said this appears to be a case where there was no collective consultation amongst the three constitutional functionaries of the High Court i.e; the Chief Justice and the two senior-most companion judges. “The absence of the element of plurality, in the process of reconsideration as directed by the Supreme Court Collegium, is clearly discernible," said the bench.
The apex court did not accept the contention that the Chief Justice of the High Court can individually reconsider a candidate based on how resolutions are worded.
Various Supreme Court resolutions were placed before the bench to show that there is a difference in language and in the present case, it was specifically addressed to the Chief Justice of the High Court. “It was contended that this wide power of the Collegium to direct reconsideration individually by the Chief Justice may not be curtailed. We are disinclined to accept this view as it is well-settled that the Supreme Court Collegium does not sit in appeal over the High Court Collegium”, said Justice Roy.
The bench said, in our opinion, the language therein by itself cannot be understood as permitting the chief justice of the High Court to act on his own, in matters of recommendation or even reconsideration, for elevation to the High Court bench.
The bench said the recommendation by the Supreme Court collegium for reconsideration, is not expected to be addressed individually to all the members of the High Court collegium. “Such communications are naturally addressed to the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned, but as noted earlier, the letter addressed to the Chief Justice will not enable the Chief Justice to act without participation by the other two collegium members," said the bench.
The bench emphasised that collaborative deliberations bring in transparency in the process, as decisions are deliberated, debated and recorded and this contributes to public trust in the judiciary, as it demonstrates that appointments are being made based on thorough consideration.
The apex court stressed that it needs to be stated that there is also a need to protect certain sensitive information in matters involving appointment of judges. “While transparency is necessary to ensure fairness and accountability, it must be carefully balanced with the need to maintain confidentiality. “Disclosing sensitive information would compromise not only the privacy of the individual but also the integrity of the process”, said the bench.
