SUPREME COURT ALLOWS LIMITED JUDICIAL SCRUTINY OF COLLEGIUM DECISIONS
Category: Constitutional law - Administrative affairs policy making
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
The Supreme court of India has given permission to determine whether the decision taken by the collegium was taken in effective manner and the decision was taken with consultation of all the members of the collegium.
Background of the case
This case involving two District Judges from Himachal Pradesh, Chirag Bhanu Singh and Arvind Malhotra. The two district judges has alleged that their merits and seniority has been ignored by the high court collegium for the selection for the High court judge. It has been contented that the names of the two district court should be reconsider for the promotion to become the High court judges. It has been contented that the decision regarding the consideration of the elevation of the two district judges has been made solely by the Chief Justice alone and there was no collective consultation and deliberations by the members of the high court collegium.
The two district judges Chirag Bhanu Singh and Arvind Malhotra have moved to apex court alleging that the High court has overlooked their merits and seniority to become a High court judge.
The apex court agreed with the district judges Chirag Bhanu Singh and Arvind Malhotra and has said that the consultation for the consideration of the elevation of the two district judges has been solely made by the decision of the Chief Justice. The apex court has also said that the such decision has been made without the consultation of the all the members of the High court Collegium . Hence the decision was not made in effective and collective manner.
KEY LEGAL ASPECTS
The bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra has delivered its verdict on a plea by two senior-most district and sessions judges serving in Himachal Pradesh Chirag Bhanu Singh and Arvind Malhotra who had alleged that their merit and seniority were not considered by the high court collegium in selection of names for high court judgeship
The Supreme court has directed the Himachal Pradesh High court to reconsider the decision made regarding the elevation of the two district judges.
The Supreme court has directed that such decisions has to made in consultation with the other members of the High court Collegium, not solely by the Chief Justice. The apex court has directed that such decisions has to be made in effective manner.
The apex court said that this scrutiny has nothing to do with the ‘merits’ or the ‘suitability’ of the officers in question but to verify whether ‘effective consultation’ was made. Such scrutiny is permissible within the limited scope of judicial review,"
The apex court has said that the 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 Bench summed up the following legal principles that emerged from precedents on the subject:
i) ‘Lack of effective consultation’ and ‘eligibility’ falls within the scope of judicial review
ii) ‘Suitability’ is non-justiciable and resultingly, the ‘content of consultation’ falls beyond the scope of judicial review
CONCLUSION
To conclude the apex court has said that 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 The bench said it has been emphasised that collaborative deliberations bring in transparency in the process, as decisions are deliberated, debated, and recorded.
The apex court said this contributes to public trust in the judiciary, as it demonstrates that appointments are being made after thorough consideration.
The apex court has also said that before parting, 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
OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide.
WRITTEN BY: PRATIKSHA SWAIN
GUIDED BY: ADVOCATE ANIK
