The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition contesting the appointment of seven judges. The court found no merit in the arguments presented against the appointments. This decision upholds the selection and appointment process of the judges. The ruling reinforces the judicial appointments as valid and lawful.
Bhopal: The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently rejected a petition that contested a notification issued by the Central government last year regarding the appointment of seven High Court judges.
Read Also: Madhya Pradesh High Court Strengthens Bench with Appointment of Seven New Judges
The Bench declared,
“This Court has no manner of doubt that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted, and therefore, the petition is dismissed in limine,”
Advocate Maruti Sondhiya filed a petition challenging a notification issued by the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, in November 2023. This notification pertained to the appointment of Justices Vinay Saraf, Vivek Jain, Rajendra Kumar Vani, Pramod Kumar Agrawal, Binod Kumar Dwivedi, Devnarayan Mishra, and Gajendra Singh as High Court judges.
Sondhiya’s challenge was based on several grounds:
- Despite having completed ten years of practice in the High Court, he was not considered for the appointment.
- There was no advertisement issued prior to appointing the seven judges.
- The appointment process did not consider candidates from Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC), or Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), resulting in a lack of representation for these categories on the Bench.
- There was an overrepresentation of the forward class both within the Collegium and among the appointed judges.
The Court observed that Article 217 of the Constitution of India allows for the elevation of an advocate with a minimum of ten years of practice to the position of High Court judge.
However, the Court clarified that this does not mean all advocates with at least ten years of High Court practice must be considered by the High Court or Supreme Court Collegium.
The Court then examined the origins of the Collegium system, noting that it established as the primary body for appointing High Court judges through a series of judgments by the apex court.
It stated,
“Thus, the Collegium derives its existence and legal authority from judge-made law, which, under Article 141 of the Constitution, constitutes the law of the land and is binding on all courts, the executive, and the legislature,”
Regarding the argument about the absence of advertisements for judicial vacancies, the Court remarked that the petitioner seemed to misunderstand the nature of the High Court Judge’s position, mistaking it for a civil post within the executive branch.
It stated,
“This is far from the truth, as the role of a High Court Judge is a Constitutional office filled exclusively by the procedures outlined in the Constitution,”
The Court further clarified,
“No statute, statutory rule, or executive instruction can replace or add to the Constitutional procedure for appointing a High Court Judge. Since the Constitution does not require the issuance of advertisements or the conduct of written tests or viva voce for selection, the current procedure cannot be faulted.”
Addressing the issue of inadequate representation of all categories (SC/ST, OBC or OBC) in judicial appointments, the Court clarified that neither the Constitution nor established judicial precedent mandates any reservation or adequate representation of these categories in the appointment process.
The Court stated,
“Therefore, instituting any such reservation or adequate/proportionate representation of all categories would not only be contrary to the Constitutional provisions but also to the judicial decisions of the Supreme Court. Consequently, this argument by the petitioner is baseless,”
The Court also dismissed the claim that the Collegiums of the High Court and Supreme Court predominantly composed of members from the forward class.
The High Court stated,
“The Constitution does not mandate any reservation or adequate or proportionate representation for all categories, and any attempt to grant the petitioner’s request would violate constitutional provisions,”
The High Court noted,
“As previously established, since the Constitution does not mandate any reservation or adequate or proportionate representation of all categories, acceding to the petitioner’s request would contravene the constitutional provisions,”
Advocate Uday Kumar appeared on behalf of the petitioner, while Deputy Advocate General BD Singh represented the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Read Judgement: [Maruti Sondhiya vs Union of India and Others].