The Delhi High Court ruled that the Collegium’s rationale for rejecting candidates for judgeship must remain confidential. The court stated that making these reasons public could negatively impact the reputation and interests of those whose names were suggested.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court recently stated that the rationale behind the Supreme Court collegium‘s decision to reject candidates recommended by the High Court collegium for judgeship should not be made public, as this could adversely affect the candidates involved.
A Division Bench, consisting of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, highlighted that the collegium’s decisions made based on confidential information about individuals.
The Bench observed,
“Such information, if made public, will have the effect of stifling the appointment process.”
Additionally, the Bench clarified that the High Court cannot review or challenge the Supreme Court collegium’s subjective assessment.
The legal principles governing the appointment of judges well-established, with the Supreme Court consistently distinguishing between a candidate’s eligibility and suitability for appointment as a High Court judge.
The High Court explained,
“Eligibility is an objective factor which is determined by applying the parameters or qualifications specified in Article 217(2), whereas, fitness and suitability of a person is evaluated in the consultative process,”
The Delhi High Court made these observations while dismissing an appeal by Rakesh Kumar Gupta. Gupta previously petitioned a single judge of the High Court, seeking an order for the Supreme Court to disclose the reasons for rejecting the High Court collegium’s recommendations for judgeship appointments.
The single judge dismissed his petition and imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000, prompting Gupta to appeal to the Division Bench.
Before the Division Bench, Gupta argued that he had the standing to file the writ petition as a Delhi resident with cases pending in court due to the lack of judicial appointments. He asserted that the shortage of judges in the High Courts led to inadequate supervision of District Courts, thus affecting their functioning.
Gupta contended that the Supreme Court’s rejection rate of High Court collegium recommendations for judge elevations 35.29% in 2023, compared to just 4.38% in 2021.
After reviewing the case, the Division Bench concluded that Gupta’s argument regarding the Supreme Court’s rejection of the High Court collegium’s recommendations misplaced.
The High Court stated,
“The appellant has failed to understand that appointment of a judge to the High Court or Supreme Court is an integrated, consultative and non-adversarial process, which cannot be challenged in a court of law except on the ground of want of consultation with the named constitutional functionaries or lack of any condition of eligibility in the case of an appointment, or of a transfer being made without the recommendation of the Chief Justice of India,”
The Bench dismissed Gupta’s appeal, advising him to file an application for an early hearing if he believed his cases being delayed.
Gupta represented himself in the proceedings, while no one appeared on behalf of the Supreme Court.
Read Judgement: [CA Rakesh Kumar Gupta v Supreme Court of India through Secretary General].