SC collegium breaks tradition, meets HC judgeship candidates

New Delhi: In a significant departure from tradition, the Supreme Court collegium on Sunday conducted interactions with candidates being considered for high court judgeship, according to people aware of the matter -- a move that marks an evolution in the judicial appointment process.

The development comes in the wake of a recent controversy involving an Allahabad high court judge’s contentious remarks at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) event earlier this month.

Some members of the collegium, including Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, believed that meeting prospective judges in person was essential to gain a comprehensive understanding of their suitability for elevation.

Also read | Justice Yadav appears before SC collegium after controversial remarks

“After the meeting with the Allahabad high court judge and the way the that deliberation proceeded, this view got fortified that it was crucial to meet the prospective judges rather than just go by the words on their files,” said a person aware of the matter.

The three-member collegium, comprising CJI Sanjiv Khanna and justices Bhushan R Gavai and Surya Kant, met with the candidates to gain a deeper understanding of their personalities and suitability for elevation. The candidates, including judicial officers and advocates who were being considered for high courts of Rajasthan, Allahabad and Bombay, were called to the Supreme Court on Sunday where the country’s top three judges talked to them.

“Apart from assessing the merit and suitability of recommended candidates for elevation to the high court, it was thought appropriate to meet them in person to get an overview of the person and assess their personality,” said a person familiar with the matter.

Also read | Collegium picks Delhi HC chief justice Manmohan for Supreme Court elevation

This step was taken “over and above” the conventional vetting process, which includes evaluating judicial work, seeking inputs from the Intelligence Bureau (IB), considering the views of the chief minister as forwarded by the governor, and reviewing observations made by the Department of Justice.

“It was decided to make a shift from the traditional method to understand the candidates better and beyond what is written about them in various files,” added another person.

While this form of personal interaction has precedence, it had largely fallen out of favour after being implemented during the tenure of then-CJI Dipak Misra in 2018.

The current collegium’s move to revive the practice follows its recent meeting with justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad high court, whose controversial remarks at a VHP event sparked widespread criticism.

Justice Yadav, addressing a VHP event on December 8 in Prayagraj, reportedly remarked that India should function according to the wishes of the majority, using slurs and asserting that “only a Hindu can make this country a ‘Vishwa Guru.’” He also called for the abolition of practices like triple talaq and halala under the Uniform Civil Code (UCC).

The remarks were widely condemned for undermining the principles of secularism and judicial impartiality enshrined in the Constitution. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, supported by over 50 opposition MPs, submitted a notice in the Rajya Sabha seeking Justice Yadav’s impeachment for what they termed a “grave violation of judicial ethics.” The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) also demanded an in-house inquiry and suspension, alleging that his comments breached the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life adopted by the Supreme Court in 1997.

On December 17, the Supreme Court collegium held a 30-minute meeting with Justice Yadav to discuss the matter. All five members of the collegium—CJI Khanna and justices Gavai, Kant, Hrishikesh Roy, and Abhay S Oka—participated in the session, which aimed to ascertain whether justice Yadav’s conduct violated the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct or the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life.

As reported by HT on December 18, people in the know revealed that the collegium is considering options ranging from an in-house inquiry to a transfer to another high court, depending on justice Yadav’s explanations. “The collegium is treading carefully to ensure fairness while addressing concerns about judicial impartiality. Any decision will be taken with due consideration of the sensitivity of the issue,” a person familiar with the matter hd said at the time.

CJI Khanna’s one-on-one interaction with justice Yadav was reportedly aimed at counselling him on the importance of maintaining judicial neutrality and upholding constitutional values, especially in the context of public statements. While a decision regarding justice Yadav’s future is yet to be made, it is unlikely that he will be called to meet the collegium again.

The revival of personal interactions for judicial appointments reflects a proactive approach by the collegium to ensure transparency, suitability and integrity in the selection process. At a time when judicial impartiality is under the spotlight, such measures may help reinforce public confidence in the judiciary.

Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct is a global framework for judicial ethics adopted in 2002. The Bangalore Principles act as a guiding framework to ensure judicial neutrality and ethical conduct. Indian courts have occasionally invoked these principles in disciplinary contexts, particularly when evaluating allegations of judicial misconduct, as seen in cases of public speeches or actions that may compromise the perception of judicial impartiality.