The Supreme Court on Friday asked the collegium of the Himachal Pradesh High Court to reconsider the names of two senior-most district and sessions judges for elevation as judges of the High Court. The top court observed that the High Court chief justice could not individually reconsider a recommendation and it could only be done by a High Court collegium, acting collectively.

A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra delivered its verdict on a plea filed by the two senior-most district and sessions judges, alleging that their merit and seniority were not considered by the High Court collegium in the selection of names for High Court judgeship. “There was no collective consultation and deliberation by the members of the High Court collegium,” the bench said while pronouncing its judgment. “In light of the above, the high court collegium should now reconsider the names of Chirag Bhanu Singh and Arvind Malhotra for elevation as judges of the high court, following the Supreme Court collegium decision dated January 4, 2024...” it said.

While pronouncing its verdict, the top court bench said, “The decision of the chief justice of the High Court on the suitability of the two petitioners, as conveyed in his letter dated March 6, 2024, appears to be an individual decision. The same stands vitiated, both procedurally and substantially.” It said the writ petition filed by the petitioners was maintainable as it questioned the lack of effective consultation.

“…the procedure adopted in the matter of reconsideration of the two petitioners is found to be inconsistent with the law laid down in the Second Judges (supra) and the Third Judges case(supra). There was no collective consultation and deliberations by the members of the High Court Collegium. The decision of the Chief Justice of the High Court, on the suitability of the two petitioners as conveyed in his letter dated 6th March 2024, appears to be an individual decision. The same therefore stand vitiated both procedurally and substantially,” the bench said in its order.

It said there was no collective consultation by the high court collegium on the elevation of district and sessions judges to the superior court and the decision on the suitability of the two senior-most judges appeared to be an “individual decision” of the chief justice.

The apex court also stressed on the need to protect certain sensitive information in matters involving appointment of judges and said disclosing such information would compromise not only the privacy of an individual but also the integrity of the process.

It also dealt with the issue of whether the elevation to judgeship of a high court has to be considered collectively by the high court collegium or the chief justice can reconsider the same acting individually. “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,” it said.

“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.

Referring to previous judgements of the apex court, the bench said it has been emphasised that collaborative deliberations bring in transparency in the process, as decisions are deliberated, debated, and recorded.

It said this contributes to public trust in judiciary, as it demonstrates that appointments are being made after thorough consideration.

“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,” the bench said.

The order further said in this case, the Court is not concerned with the aspects of ‘suitability’ of the petitioners for elevation as judges of the High Court or even the ‘content of consultation’. Our scrutiny is limited to whether the reconsideration of the proposal for the elevation of the two petitioners, was jointly made by the Collegium members of the High Court, following the Supreme Court Resolution dated 4th January 2024.

On May 13, the apex court sought a response from the registrar general of the Himachal Pradesh High Court on the plea.The petition was filed by the two judicial officers, alleging non-consideration of their names for judgeship by the high court collegium.

The plea had said the apex court collegium’s decision to send their names for reconsideration by the high court collegium was followed by a communication from the Union law minister to the high court chief justice, urging him to reconsider the names of the petitioner judicial officers. It had alleged that the high court collegium did not consider these and proceeded to deliberate upon the names of other judicial officers.