 |
|
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that the Chief Justice of a High Court cannot individually reconsider a recommendation for the elevation of judges. This decision reinforces the established collegium system, which mandates collective deliberation by a panel of judges for such appointments. The court's judgment arose from a writ petition filed by two senior district judges of Himachal Pradesh who challenged the High Court Collegium's decision to ignore their elevation.
The petitioners had been recommended for elevation by the High Court Collegium in December 2022. However, the Supreme Court Collegium deferred their consideration in July 2023 and subsequently remitted the proposal for reconsideration to the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in January 2024. Despite this, the High Court Collegium recommended the elevation of two other judges. The Chief Justice of the High Court then individually addressed a letter to the Supreme Court Collegium regarding the suitability of the petitioners, claiming it was in compliance with the Supreme Court Collegium's resolution.
The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the Chief Justice's individual decision was procedurally and substantially flawed. The court emphasized that the collegium system, as established by the Second Judges case and the Third Judges case, necessitates collective consultation and deliberation by all collegium members. The court deemed the Chief Justice's individual action as inconsistent with this established process and beyond the scope of judicial review. The court further clarified that the Supreme Court Collegium does not sit in appeal over the High Court Collegium, but rather engages in a participatory process where each constitutional functionary plays a role.
The Supreme Court's decision underscores the importance of the collegium system in maintaining transparency and accountability in judicial appointments. It reaffirms that the appointment process is not the prerogative of a single individual but requires collective wisdom and diverse perspectives. The judgment also highlights the limitations of judicial review in matters related to the suitability of candidates, while recognizing the importance of effective consultation and transparency in the decision-making process.