The Supreme Court declined to entertain a petition by Himachal Pradesh judicial officer Arvind Malhotra seeking consideration of his name for High Court judge appointment. Malhotra alleged that junior officers were recommended by the Collegium while his candidature was not considered for elevation.
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition filed by a Himachal Pradesh judicial officer seeking directions for consideration of his name by the High Court Collegium for appointment as a judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
The petition was filed by Arvind Malhotra, who is serving as a Principal Judge at a Family Court in Dharamshala. Malhotra approached the Supreme Court after the Collegium recommended the names of three judicial officers for elevation to the Himachal Pradesh High Court, alleging that officers junior to him had been selected while his candidature was not considered.
On June 3, the Supreme Court Collegium had recommended the names of judicial officers Chirag Bhanu Singh, Bhupesh Sharma and Yogesh Jaswal for appointment as judges of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
During the hearing, a Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that seniority alone cannot be treated as an automatic qualification for elevation to the High Court. The Bench clarified that appointments involve a detailed evaluation process by the Collegium and cannot be challenged merely on the basis of comparative seniority.
The Bench said,
“Merely because you are a senior does not mean you will be recommended. Once collegium discusses, we cannot intervene. There is secrecy involved also,”
The Court further noted that Malhotra’s case was not one where his candidature had been formally rejected. It explained that the process of recommending judges involves the subjective satisfaction of the Collegium, and the Court cannot issue directions requiring the Collegium to reconsider its internal assessment.
It remarked,
“Can Supreme Court on judicial side ask them (collegium) look into this and look into that? If this happens then where are we heading?”
The Bench also pointed out that there may not be any negative observation or adverse material against Malhotra. However, it maintained that judicial review of Collegium decisions is not permissible in such circumstances.
The Bench said,
“We will not open a Pandoras Box by enquiring into the decisions of High Court and Supreme Court collegium,”
During the hearing, the Supreme Court Bench also considered the fact that Arvind Malhotra still had nearly 10 years of service remaining before retirement. The Court observed that there was sufficient time available for future consideration of his candidature and advised him not to be in haste.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked that since Malhotra had a considerable period of service left, he should wait for further opportunities regarding elevation.
Justice BV Nagarathna also advised the judicial officer to remain patient, indicating that a future opportunity for appointment could still arise if his name is considered at a later stage.
The Supreme Court said that if Malhotra’s name had only been deferred for consideration, the possibility of his future elevation remained open. The Bench added that it could not compel the Collegium to disclose reasons for not including his name among the recommendations.
Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, appearing for Malhotra, argued that the Supreme Court Collegium had earlier asked the High Court Collegium to reconsider his case after he submitted a representation.
However, Justice Nagarathna questioned the basis of the claim that such reconsideration had not taken place. Justice Bagchi observed that a judicial officer cannot challenge the decision-making process of a screening committee that prepares a list of eligible officers for consideration by the recommending authority.
The Bench further observed that no legal cause of action was made out in the matter.
Justice Nagarathna observed.
“There is no cause of action. In Karnataka, for three vacancies, nine are called.. Three are selected. So others cannot adopt this mode and manner,”
The Court also highlighted that there appeared to be no procedural irregularity in the case. It noted that it was not even clear whether Malhotra’s name had been removed or simply remained outside the zone of consideration during the current round of appointments.
Justice Bagchi added that since the Supreme Court Collegium had accepted the recommendation made by the High Court Collegium, the decision could not be subjected to judicial review at this stage.
The Bench ultimately suggested that Malhotra withdraw the petition and instead submit a fresh representation seeking information regarding the status of his candidature.
The Court said,
“Try to make a reminder representation to find out the stage of the process and there your matter will end. We don’t want to spoil your chances by saying something. Better you withdraw this,”
Following the hearing, the Supreme Court clarified in its order that Malhotra would remain free to approach the appropriate authority of the High Court, either on the administrative side or through other permissible legal avenues.
The order reiterates the limited scope of judicial intervention in judicial appointments and highlights the Supreme Court’s position that decisions of the Collegium, involving confidential assessment and institutional considerations, cannot be reopened merely on claims of seniority or non-selection.