Supreme Court Mandates Collective Collegium Review for High Court Judge Elevations: Chirag Bhanu Singh vs. High Court of Himachal Pradesh (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: September 6, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 660
Judges: Hrishikesh Roy, J. and Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

When a High Court recommends a judicial officer for elevation to a High Court judge, can the Chief Justice of that High Court alone reconsider the recommendation, or is a collective decision by the High Court Collegium required? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a writ petition filed by two senior District and Sessions Judges of Himachal Pradesh, clarifying the procedure for reconsidering judicial appointments. This judgment underscores the importance of collective decision-making in judicial appointments to maintain transparency and accountability.

Case Background

The petitioners, Chirag Bhanu Singh and Arvind Malhotra, were the seniormost District and Sessions Judges in Himachal Pradesh. On December 6, 2022, the High Court Collegium recommended them for elevation as judges of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. However, on July 12, 2023, the Supreme Court Collegium deferred their consideration. Subsequently, on January 4, 2024, the Supreme Court Collegium remitted their proposal back to the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court for reconsideration. The Law Minister, on January 16, 2024, requested fresh recommendations for these two officers against the available vacancies. The High Court Collegium, however, recommended two other judicial officers for elevation without first reconsidering the petitioners’ names, leading to the present writ petition.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of the collegium system for judicial appointments and the scope of judicial review in such matters. Key aspects include:

• The collegium system, which evolved through the Supreme Court’s judgments in the Second Judges Case [Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441] and Third Judges Case [Special Reference No. 1 of 1998, Re, (1998) 7 SCC 739], emphasizes collective decision-making in judicial appointments.
• Article 217 of the Constitution of India deals with the appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court.
• The Supreme Court has consistently held that judicial review in judicial appointments is limited to ‘eligibility’ and ‘lack of effective consultation,’ while ‘suitability’ and the ‘content of consultation’ are non-justiciable. This principle was reiterated in Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India [(2009) 8 SCC 273], M. Manohar Reddy v. Union of India [(2013) 3 SCC 99], and Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India [(2023) 5 SCC 661].

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments (Chirag Bhanu Singh & Anr.):

• The petitioners, being the seniormost district judges with unblemished records, have a constitutional right for reconsideration of their names.
• The issue of elevation must be collectively considered by the High Court Collegium, not by the Chief Justice alone.
• The letter written by one of the judicial officers to the Chief Justice of India was merely an expression of anguish and not contemptuous.
• The writ petition is maintainable as it pertains to ‘lack of effective consultation,’ which is within the scope of judicial review as established in Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India [(2009) 8 SCC 273].

Respondents’ Arguments (High Court of Himachal Pradesh):

• The writ petition is not maintainable as it seeks judicial review over the ‘suitability’ of the candidates, which is beyond the scope of judicial review.
• The Supreme Court Collegium’s resolution did not specify that the reconsideration of the petitioners’ names was to be in consultation with the other members of the High Court Collegium. Therefore, the Chief Justice could have made the reconsideration individually.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable?
2. Whether elevation for judgeship in the High Court has to be considered collectively by the High Court Collegium or whether the Chief Justice acting individually can reconsider the same?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India [(1993) 4 SCC 441]*: The Court relied on this case to emphasize the limited scope of judicial review in appointment of judges and the importance of the collegium system.
• Special Reference No. 1 of 1998, Re [(1998) 7 SCC 739]*: The Court used this case to reiterate the need for collective decision-making in judicial appointments.
• Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India [(2009) 8 SCC 273]*: The Court followed this case to distinguish between ‘eligibility’ and ‘suitability’ and to clarify that lack of effective consultation falls within judicial review.
• M. Manohar Reddy v. Union of India [(2013) 3 SCC 99]*: The Court reiterated the principles laid down in Mahesh Chandra Gupta.
• Registrar General, Madras High Court v. R. Gandhi [(2014) 11 SCC 547]*: The Court reiterated the principles laid down in Mahesh Chandra Gupta.
• Common Cause v. Union of India [(2018) 12 SCC 377]*: The Court reiterated the principles laid down in Mahesh Chandra Gupta.
• Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India [(2023) 5 SCC 661]*: The Court followed this case to reiterate that judicial review cannot substitute the decision of the Collegium with individual opinions.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized several key points in its reasoning:

• The collegium system requires collective decision-making to ensure transparency and accountability.
• The Chief Justice of a High Court cannot individually reconsider a recommendation for elevation.
• The limited scope of judicial review in appointment matters is restricted to ‘eligibility’ and ‘lack of effective consultation’.
• The process of appointment of judges must reflect collective wisdom from diverse perspectives.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the established legal principles governing judicial appointments and the collegium system. The court emphasized the need for collective decision-making to ensure transparency and accountability, and to avoid any semblance of arbitrariness or bias. The court also clarified that while the content of consultation is beyond judicial review, the lack of effective consultation is not.

The court considered the argument that the Supreme Court Collegium’s resolution did not explicitly mandate consultation with other members of the High Court Collegium. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the collegium system inherently requires collective decision-making. The court also dismissed the argument that the letter written by one of the petitioners was contemptuous, stating that it was merely an expression of hurt.

The Court quoted from the Second Judges Case:
“482. This is also in accord with the public interest of excluding these appointments and transfers from litigative debate, to avoid any erosion in the credibility of the decisions, and to ensure a free and frank expression of honest opinion by all the constitutional functionaries, which is essential for effective consultation and for taking the right decision.”

The Court also quoted from Mahesh Chandra Gupta:
“73. The concept of plurality of Judges in the formation of the opinion of the Chief Justice of India is one of inbuilt checks against the likelihood of arbitrariness or bias.”

The Court further quoted from Anna Mathews v Supreme Court of India:
“10. We are clearly of the opinion that this Court, while exercising power of judicial review cannot issue a writ of certiorari quashing the recommendation, or mandamus calling upon the Collegium of the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision, as this would be contrary to the ratio and dictum of the earlier decisions of this Court referred to above, which are binding on us.”

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges concurring on the need for collective decision-making in judicial appointments. The Court did not introduce any new doctrines but reaffirmed the existing legal principles.

Key Takeaways

• The High Court Collegium must collectively reconsider recommendations for High Court judge elevations.
• The Chief Justice of a High Court cannot act individually in matters of recommendation or reconsideration for elevation.
• Judicial review in appointment matters is limited to ‘eligibility’ and ‘lack of effective consultation’.
• The collegium system emphasizes transparency and accountability through collective decision-making.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court Collegium to reconsider the names of Mr. Chirag Bhanu Singh and Mr. Arvind Malhotra for elevation as Judges of the High Court, following the Supreme Court Collegium decision dated January 4, 2024, and the Law Minister’s letter dated January 16, 2024.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Chief Justice of a High Court cannot individually reconsider a recommendation for elevation of a judge and that the High Court Collegium must act collectively. This judgment reaffirms the existing principles of the collegium system and does not introduce any new legal principles. It emphasizes the importance of collective decision-making and the limited scope of judicial review in appointment matters.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Chirag Bhanu Singh vs. High Court of Himachal Pradesh clarifies that the High Court Collegium must collectively reconsider recommendations for High Court judge elevations, and the Chief Justice cannot act individually. This decision reinforces the principles of transparency and accountability in judicial appointments and upholds the established collegium system. The Supreme Court has directed the High Court Collegium to reconsider the names of the petitioners for elevation as Judges of the High Court.