Madhya Pradesh HC’s principal bench in Jabalpur stated that neither the Constitution nor judicial precedent requires reservation or proportional representation in judges’ appointments. This came as a double bench, led by acting Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Amar Nath Kesherwani, dismissed a petition challenging a judge’s appointment, following an earlier reservation of the order on Advocate Rameshwar Thakur and others’ petition.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
BHOPAL: The Madhya Pradesh High Court at its principal bench in Jabalpur decisively addressed the contentious issue of implementing reservations in the appointment process for judges. The ruling came from a double bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Amar Nath Kesherwani. The decision reaffirmed the judiciary’s adherence to constitutional mandates, emphasizing that the framework for judicial appointments remains unreserved for any category.
The case originated from a petition led by Advocate Rameshwar Thakur, among others, challenging the current norms of appointing judges in the High Court. The advocates raised concerns seeking inclusion of reservations or at least an adequate or proportionate representation of all categories in these appointments. This plea was thought to bring a more diversified representation within the judiciary system.
However, the bench clarified its stance by stating-
“Neither the Constitution nor the judiciary has enacted any law mandating reservation or proportional representation for all categories in the process of appointing judges.”
This observation underscored the constitutional and legal boundaries that currently govern the appointment process. The court stressed that introducing such measures would contradict both the constitutional provisions and the established judge-made laws from the apex court.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Intervenes to Expedite District Judge Appointments, Sets Timelines for High Courts
Furthermore, the bench elaborated on their decision by commenting-
“Introducing reservation or proportional representation for all categories would not only contradict Constitutional provisions but also established judicial principles.”
This statement highlighted the fundamental legal principle that judicial appointments must be based solely on merit and legal qualifications without the influence of external reservation policies.
The verdict firmly dismissed the petition, with the judges concluding that this particular ground raised by the petitioner “does not hold any water.” This dismissal is not just a reflection on the specific case but also sets a significant precedent regarding the interpretation of constitutional law as it applies to the judiciary.
This judgment from the Madhya Pradesh High Court reiterates the complex balance between constitutional directives and the pursuit of diversity within the judiciary. It also confirms the judiciary’s role in maintaining the sanctity of the constitutionally outlined processes, ensuring that the appointments are fair, unbiased, and strictly adherent to the legal standards set forth by both the Constitution and the Supreme Court of India.
Grounds of the Petition
The petitioner, who had completed 10 years of practice in the High Court, argued that they were eligible for appointment as a High Court judge under Article 217(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. The main points of contention in the petition were as follows:
- Eligibility Overlooked: The petitioner stated- “Despite meeting the eligibility criteria under Article 217(2)(b) of the Indian Constitution by practicing law for over 10 years in the High Court, I have not been considered for a judgeship.”
- Lack of Advertisement: It was argued that “No prior advertisement was issued before the appointments.” suggesting a lack of transparency in the selection process.
- Representation Issues: The petitioner pointed out “No candidates from the SC/ST, OBC, or EWS categories were taken into consideration.” highlighting the alleged denial of adequate representation of these categories on the Bench.
- Over-Representation of Forward Class: The petition further claimed- “The forward class is overrepresented not only within the collegium but also among the appointments made by the respondents.”
In response to the petition, the High Court made several important observations. The court noted that while the petitioner had met the minimum requisite eligibility criteria for an advocate to be elevated as a High Court Judge, which is a practice period of at least 10 years, this did not automatically qualify every eligible advocate for consideration by the collegium.
The court emphasized-
“The petition highlights that while practicing law in the High Court for at least a decade is a minimum requirement for consideration as a High Court judge, it doesn’t guarantee automatic consideration by the High Court or Supreme Court collegiums.”
The High Court underscored the discretionary power of the collegium in the appointment process. It stated-
“The collegium possesses discretionary powers to select candidates based on various factors such as merit, integrity, and overall suitability for the judicial role.”
Addressing the issue of transparency and representation, the court acknowledged the petitioner’s concerns but clarified that the current appointment process does not mandate an open call for applications.
ALSO READ: Haryana government justifies rejecting HC’s recommendation on district judge appointment
The court remarked-
“While the petitioner’s transparency concerns are acknowledged, the current legal framework does not mandate the advertisement of judicial vacancies.”
Regarding the representation of SC/ST, OBC, and EWS categories, the court highlighted that efforts are continually made to ensure diversity on the Bench.
“Ongoing efforts aim to ensure diverse representation, with appointments made based on a comprehensive evaluation of candidates’ qualifications and contributions to the legal profession.”
– the court stated.
