Don’t want to open pandora’s box with regard to proceedings of collegium: SC

“We don’t want to open a Pandora’s box with regard to the proceedings of the collegium,” the Supreme Court said on Monday while refusing to entertain a petition filed by a judicial officer from Himachal Pradesh.

The petitioner had approached the apex court alleging that names of officers junior to him were recommended for appointment as judges of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi observed these are matters where ultimately it is the subjective satisfaction of the collegium of the high court. 

“Can on the judicial side, the Supreme Court say to the collegium, you do this or you do that and you consider the name? It can’t be done,” the bench said.

“On the judicial side, we don’t want to open a Pandora’s box with regard to the proceedings of the high court collegium or the Supreme Court collegium,” it said. Senior advocate Balbir Singh, appearing for the petitioner, said the petitioner is the senior-most judicial officer in the State and has around 10 more years of service left.

The bench observed that merely because someone is high in seniority does not mean that he is entitled to be recommended for elevation.

After the top court showed its disinclination in entertaining the petition, the petitioner said he would withdraw the plea with liberty to seek appropriate reliefs before the competent authority of the high court on the administrative side or seek remedy on the judicial side.

The bench disposed of the matter, subject to the liberty as sought. The apex court collegium had on June 2 approved the proposal for appointment of three judicial officers — Chirag Bhanu Singh, Bhupesh Sharma and Yogesh Jaswal — as judges of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

During the hearing on Monday, the bench observed there was nothing on record to indicate that the high court collegium had rejected the petitioner’s name.

“There is no rejection of your candidature at this stage. Please wait for sometime,” the bench said.

The top court observed that recommendation made by the high court collegium has already been approved by the Supreme Court collegium. It said the petitioner’s name may have been under consideration or it may have been deferred and he need to have some patience.

“The narration of events which you have given clearly indicates that there was consideration,” the bench observed.

It said the petitioner may avail remedies before the competent authority of the high court on the administrative side or the judicial side.