‘Chief justice can’t act solo’: SC quashes collegium’s decision
In its decision, the apex court ruled that “lack of effective consultation” during judicial appointments falls within the scope of judicial review, emphasising that the chief justice of a high court cannot make such decisions individually.
The Supreme Court on Friday intervened to quash a collegium decision of the Himachal Pradesh high court that overlooked two senior district judges for elevation, marking a first-of-its-kind decision on an issue that is usually dealt very selectively or administratively.
In its decision, the apex court ruled that “lack of effective consultation” during judicial appointments falls within the scope of judicial review, emphasising that the chief justice of a high court cannot make such decisions individually.
The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra, sets a significant precedent, with the court holding that the process of judicial appointments is not the prerogative of a single individual but must involve “collective consultation” by all members of the high court collegium -- chief justice and the two seniormost companion judges.
The court quashed the Himachal Pradesh high court collegium’s process, deeming it procedurally and substantively vitiated due to the lack of joint deliberation.
The ruling marked the first instance where the apex court exercised judicial review over a collegium decision, which is generally dealt with administratively. In the past, the judiciary has maintained a hands-off approach toward such decisions, but this case has now established that procedural lapses, such as inadequate consultation, are subject to scrutiny.
Directing the high court collegium to reconsider the names of the two district judges, the bench noted that the collegium’s decision to overlook them was flawed due to a lack of proper consultation, as the high court chief justice unilaterally decided not to reconsider their names, citing suitability as a factor.
The judgment stressed that the chief justice should have consulted the other members of the high court collegium before making such a decision, declaring that this “lack of effective consultation” invalidated the process.
The bench set an important precedent for how judicial appointments must adhere to procedural norms while clarifying the judicial review parameters concerning collegium decisions. The court explicitly stated that while the suitability of a candidate for elevation is “non-justiciable” and beyond the purview of judicial scrutiny, the procedural aspect -- particularly the lack of effective consultation -- can indeed be examined by the court.
The judgment underscored the distinction that “lack of effective consultation” and “eligibility” fall within the scope of judicial review, but “suitability” of a candidate is non-justiciable, and the “content of consultation” fall beyond the remit of court scrutiny.
Affirming that the judicial appointments process must be a “collaborative and participatory” one, involving all members of the collegium, the court emphasised that the chief justice of a high court cannot act unilaterally in considering or reconsidering candidates for elevation.
“The process of judicial appointments to a superior court is not the prerogative of a single individual. Instead, it is a collaborative and participatory process involving all collegium members. The underlying principle is that the process of appointment of judges must reflect the collective wisdom that draws from diverse perspectives. Such a process ensures that principles of transparency and accountability are maintained,” it held.
The case was brought before the court by district judges Chirag Bhanu Singh of Bilaspur and Arvind Malhotra of Solan, who approached the Supreme Court in May, alleging that their merit and seniority were disregarded by the Himachal Pradesh high court collegium. They harped upon a recommendation from the Supreme Court collegium on January 4 to reconsider their names for elevation, followed by a subsequent communication from the Union law minister.
Singh, a former registrar on deputation to the Supreme Court, and Malhotra contended that their exclusion, despite their unblemished judicial records, infringed upon their constitutional rights and was arbitrary.
Senior advocate Arvind Datar, representing the judges, argued that less senior judicial officers were recommended for high court judgeships under the in-service quota, bypassing the petitioners.
Senior advocate S Muralidhar, representing the high court, argued that the January 4 resolution of the Supreme Court collegium did not specify that the reconsideration of the petitioners’ names was to be in consultation with the other members of the collegium and therefore, the chief justice took the decision by himself.
Rejecting Muralidhar’s submissions, the court noted that the absence of the element of plurality, in the process of reconsideration as directed by the Supreme Court collegium, is clearly discernible because the chief justice did not engage in the required collective consultation before making the decision.
“This court is mindful of the limited scope of interference in such matters. But 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,” it underlined.
The bench further noted that the chief justice’s decision to disregard the petitioners’ names in a letter dated March 6, 2024, was made individually, without input from the other members of the collegium, which was also in breach of previous constitution bench judgments that stressed the importance of plurality in judicial appointments to prevent arbitrariness.
The bench ordered that the high court collegium must now reconsider the names of the Singh and Malhotra in accordance with the Supreme Court collegium’s resolution dated January 4, 2024.
