The Incomparable Court of India as of late conveyed a critical judgment in Chirag Bhanu Singh & Anr. vs. Tall Court of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., tending to basic issues related to legal arrangements and the procedural necessities of viable interview inside the Collegium framework. The applicants, two seniormost Locale and Sessions Judges of Himachal Pradesh, challenged their non-elevation to the Tall Court in spite of past proposals by the Collegium.
Issues Raised
The solicitors, Chirag Bhanu Singh and Arvind Malhotra, were prescribed for height as Tall Court judges by the Himachal Pradesh Collegium in December 2022. Be that as it may, the Preeminent Court Collegium conceded their thought on July 12, 2023. The matter was returned to on January 4, 2024, when the Preeminent Court Collegium transmitted their names for reevaluation by the Chief Equity of the Himachal Pradesh Tall Court. In spite of this order, the Tall Court Collegium suggested two other officers for height, bypassing the solicitors.
The primary grievance was that this act disregarded the petitioners' seniority and unblemished service record, raising questions about the process followed by the High Court Collegium. The Court was thus called upon to examine two key issues:
The Maintainability of the Writ Petition – Whether the matter fell within the scope of judicial review. The Proper Procedure for Elevation – Whether reconsideration of judgeship must be a collective decision by the High Court Collegium or if the Chief Justice could act individually.
Key Observations from the Supreme Court
When discussing maintainability, the Court cited other rulings that made a distinction between applicants' "eligibility" and "suitability" for judicial appointments, such as Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India (2009). It is well-established that appropriateness is a matter of opinion and typically not subject to judicial examination, whereas eligibility is an objective requirement.
Nonetheless, because the petition brought up issues of "lack of effective consultation," which are subject to judicial review, the Court determined that the case was in fact maintainable. Regarding the procedural requirements of the reconsideration procedure, the Court underlined that "the appointment of judges must reflect the collective wisdom that draws from diverse perspectives."
Court’s Findings and Direction
"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."
Further, the Court noted that the absence of plurality in the decision-making process invalidated the reconsideration of the petitioners' elevation: "The absence of the element of plurality, in the process of reconsideration as directed by the Supreme Court Collegium, is clearly discernible."
Conclusion
The important decision in Chirag Bhanu Singh & Anr. upholds the necessity of group consultation during the judicial nomination process. The case serves as a reminder that the correct operation of the Collegium system is essential to the independence and integrity of the court, and it also underlines the difficult balance that must be struck between secrecy and transparency in such decisions.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Supreme Court judicial appointments Collegium system Himachal Pradesh High Court writ petition effective consultation judicial review.
