The Delhi High Court fined a man Rs. 25,000 for seeking reasons behind the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendations. Justice Subramonium Prasad stated that the High Court cannot review the subjective decisions of the Supreme Court Collegium. The court emphasized the Collegium’s autonomy and discretion in its functioning.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court levied a fine of Rs. 25,000 on an individual who sought directions from the court for the Supreme Court Collegium to provide detailed justifications behind its recommendations for the appointment of High Court judges.
Justice Subramonium Prasad, presiding over the case, stated that the High Court does not have the authority to appeal against the subjective assessment made by the Supreme Court Collegium regarding judicial appointments.
Read Also: Supreme Court Collegium Proposes Justice NV Anjaria as Karnataka High Court Chief Justice
The Court noted,
“The process of selecting a High Court Judge begins with the Collegium of the respective High Court making a recommendation. This proposal is then reviewed by the Collegium of the Supreme Court, and the outcomes of these deliberations are subsequently published on the Supreme Court’s official website. The criteria for appointment as a High Court Judge are established under Article 217 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court’s Collegium evaluates multiple aspects before endorsing the High Court Collegium’s suggestions. This Court is not in a position to challenge the subjective judgments made by the Supreme Court’s Collegium,”
Rakesh Kumar Gupta, the petitioner, approached the High Court seeking the following:
(a) Directions for the Supreme Court Collegium to provide detailed reasons for the recommendations they have remitted to the High Court Collegium regarding High Court judge appointments.
(b) Directions for the Supreme Court Collegium to provide the norms and qualifications they consider when making recommendations for High Court judge appointments to the High Court Collegium .
(c) Directions for the Supreme Court Collegium to publish monthly data on the pending recommendations and disposals related to High Court judge appointments.
(d) Appropriate actions to be taken by the administrative side of the Honourable Court as it deems fit under the circumstances.
Gupta, representing himself, presented that in 2023, approximately 35.29% of High Court judge elevation recommendations were rejected by the Supreme Court Collegium, a significant increase from the 4.38% rejection rate in 2021.
He argued that this substantial rejection rate indicates a serious communication breakdown between the Supreme Court and the High Courts concerning the criteria for appointing High Court Judges.
Justice Prasad, examining the case, remarked that the petition appeared to be motivated more by the desire for publicity than by genuine public interest.
“The petition outlines the sole personal concern of the Petitioner as being related to a case that is currently pending in the Rohini District Court, Delhi. This Court is unable to discern any connection between the delay in resolving his case at the District Court and the reliefs requested in this writ petition. The Petitioner has not provided any justification for considering himself a victim; consequently, this Court believes that the present petition is merely a Publicity Interest Litigation.”
The court labelled the petition as a “total misuse of judicial resources” and decided to reject the writ petition. It imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner, which is to be paid into the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within four weeks.
The order further stated,
“Should the petitioner fail to pay the imposed penalty within the specified time, it shall be collected as overdue land revenue, and a compliance report must be submitted to this court within four weeks following that period.”
This decision sparked a debate about the balance between judicial independence and the need for transparency in the administration of justice. While the independence of the judiciary is paramount, the lack of transparency in the Collegium system has been a point of contention for years.