Supreme Court Directs High Court Collegium to Reconsider Rejected Judgeship Candidates
The case of Chirag Bhanu Singh & Anr. vs. High Court of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. deals with the Supreme Court’s intervention in a judicial appointment process where two senior District and Sessions Judges sought reconsideration for elevation to the High Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the Himachal Pradesh High Court Collegium had failed to follow due process in reconsidering their names as directed by the Supreme Court Collegium.
This ruling reaffirms the principle that judicial appointments must involve collective consultation and not unilateral decisions by a Chief Justice.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, Chirag Bhanu Singh and Arvind Malhotra, were among the senior-most District and Sessions Judges in Himachal Pradesh. They were initially recommended for elevation by the High Court Collegium on December 6, 2022, but their selection was deferred by the Supreme Court Collegium on July 12, 2023.
Subsequent developments:
- January 4, 2024: The Supreme Court Collegium remitted their names back to the Himachal Pradesh High Court Collegium for reconsideration.
- January 16, 2024: The Union Law Minister wrote to the Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh, requesting fresh recommendations.
- April 23, 2024: The Himachal Pradesh High Court Collegium recommended two other judicial officers for elevation, without first reconsidering the petitioners.
- May 13, 2024: The Supreme Court issued notice to the Registrar General of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, seeking clarity on whether proper reconsideration had taken place.
- July 23, 2024: The Supreme Court reviewed the sealed report from the High Court Registrar, confirming that the reconsideration process was not conducted properly.
- September 6, 2024: The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court Collegium had violated established procedures by allowing the Chief Justice to act unilaterally.
Legal Arguments
Arguments by the Petitioners (Chirag Bhanu Singh & Arvind Malhotra)
- They were the senior-most judicial officers in Himachal Pradesh and had a blemish-free record for nearly two decades.
- Their candidacy was arbitrarily ignored despite being reconsidered by the Supreme Court Collegium.
- Decisions on judgeship appointments must be made collectively by the High Court Collegium, not unilaterally by the Chief Justice.
- Their exclusion violated the principle of effective consultation, as required by Supreme Court precedents.
Arguments by the Respondents (High Court of Himachal Pradesh & Union Government)
- The High Court Collegium had the discretion to reconsider names as it deemed fit.
- The Chief Justice acted based on his interpretation of the Supreme Court’s directive.
- The petitioners’ grievances were beyond judicial review, as judicial appointments involve subjective considerations of suitability.
- The Supreme Court should not interfere in the internal workings of the High Court Collegium.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court examined the principles governing judicial appointments and the requirement for collective consultation.
1. Can the Chief Justice of a High Court Act Unilaterally in Reconsidering Judgeship Recommendations?
The Court ruled that judicial appointments must be made by a Collegium of multiple judges, not a single individual.
“The process of judicial appointments must reflect the collective wisdom that draws from diverse perspectives.”
2. Was There a Violation of the Principle of Effective Consultation?
The Court found that the High Court Collegium failed to properly reconsider the petitioners’ names as required by the Supreme Court’s January 4, 2024, directive.
“The absence of collective consultation in the reconsideration process renders the decision procedurally and substantively vitiated.”
3. Is the Suitability of Candidates Subject to Judicial Review?
The Court reaffirmed that while judicial appointments involve an element of discretion, failure to follow due process can be reviewed.
“While suitability is not justiciable, the lack of proper consultation falls within the scope of judicial review.”
Final Verdict
The Supreme Court issued the following orders:
- The Himachal Pradesh High Court Collegium must reconsider the petitioners’ names as per the Supreme Court’s directive of January 4, 2024.
- The Chief Justice cannot act alone in such reconsideration; all Collegium members must participate.
- The previous selection of junior officers cannot proceed until proper reconsideration is completed.
This ruling upholds the integrity of judicial appointments and ensures adherence to procedural fairness in the elevation of High Court judges.
Petitioner Name: Chirag Bhanu Singh & Anr..Respondent Name: High Court of Himachal Pradesh & Ors..Judgment By: Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.Place Of Incident: Himachal Pradesh.Judgment Date: 06-09-2024.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: chirag-bhanu-singh-&-vs-high-court-of-himach-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-06-09-2024.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Judgment by Hrishikesh Roy
See all petitions in Judgment by Prashant Kumar Mishra
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments
See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
