Judiciary – Higher Judiciary – Appointment of Judges of High Court – Judicial Review – Absence of consultation amongst the members of the Collegium – Recommendation by the Supreme Court Collegium for reconsideration of the names of the two petitioners for elevation as Judges of the High Court – Whether the reconsideration of the proposal for the elevation of the petitioners was jointly made by the Collegium members of the High Court, following the Supreme Court Resolution dated 04.01.2024 – Maintainability of the present writ petition: Held: The writ petition is maintainable as it questions the lack of effective consultation – 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 – The process of judicial appointments to a superior court is not the prerogative of a single individual – It is a collaborative and participatory process involving all Collegium members and must reflect the collective wisdom that draws from diverse perspectives and ensures that principles of transparency and accountability are maintained – 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 concerned High Court however, the letter addressed to the Chief Justice will not enable the Chief Justice to act without participation by the other two Collegium members – In the present case, there was no collective consultation and deliberations amongst the members of the High Court Collegium, the three Constitutional functionaries of the High Court i.e. the Chief Justice and the two senior-most companion judges – The procedure adopted in the matter of reconsideration of the two petitioners is inconsistent with the law laid down in the Second Judges and the Third Judges case – The decision of the Chief Justice of the High Court on the suitability of the two petitioners as conveyed in his letter dated 06.03.2024 is an individual decision and therefore, vitiated – High Court Collegium to reconsider the names of the two petitioners for elevation as Judges of the High Court following the Supreme Court Collegium decision dated 04.01.2024 and the Law Minister’s letter dated 16.01.2024. [Paras 18, 25, 27, 30-32]
Constitution of India – Article 217 (1), (2) – Appointment of judges of High Court – Judicial Review – Scope – ‘Lack of effective consultation’; ‘eligibility’; ‘suitability’: Held: ‘Lack of effective consultation’ and ‘eligibility’ falls within the scope of judicial review whereas ‘suitability’ is non-justiciable and resultingly, the ‘content of consultation’ falls beyond the scope of judicial review. [Para 15]
Judiciary – Higher Judiciary – Appointment of judges of High Court – Confidentiality – Protection of sensitive informations: Held: There is 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. [Para 29]
Judiciary – Higher Judiciary – Appointment of Judges of High Court – Process of appointment of judges – Departure in the process, pre and post-1990 after emergence of the Collegium system – Discussed.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.