The Supreme Court of India has declined to consider a petition from Arvind Malhotra, a judicial officer in Himachal Pradesh, seeking a review of the High Court Collegium’s recommendations for judicial appointments. Malhotra, currently serving as Principal Judge at a family court in Dharamshala, approached the apex court following the Collegium’s recent proposal to elevate three judges to the Himachal Pradesh High Court. He contended that less senior officers were recommended over him.
The Supreme Court Collegium, on June 3, suggested the elevation of judicial officers Chirag Bhanu Singh, Bhupesh Sharma, and Yogesh Jaswal to the High Court. Upon hearing Malhotra’s plea, the Bench comprised of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi underscored that seniority alone does not guarantee elevation. “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 Bench remarked.
The Court highlighted that Malhotra’s candidacy had not been explicitly rejected, and reiterated that appointments to the High Court are based on the collegium’s subjective satisfaction. “Can Supreme Court on judicial side ask them (collegium) to look into this and that? If this happens, then where are we heading?” the Court noted.
The Bench expressed reluctance to delve into the collegium’s decisions, stating, “We will not open a Pandora’s Box by enquiring into the decisions of High Court and Supreme Court collegium.” The Court also remarked on Malhotra’s considerable remaining service tenure, advising patience. Justice Bagchi commented, “Then you have time. Please wait,” while Justice Nagarathna urged, “Please have some patience.”
The Court suggested that if the collegium had merely deferred Malhotra’s consideration, there remained future opportunities for his elevation. It further clarified that it could not compel the High Court Collegium to disclose its rationale for selecting other candidates.
More Read
Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, representing Malhotra, argued that the Supreme Court had previously asked the High Court Collegium to reassess Malhotra’s case following his representation. Justice Nagarathna questioned the foundation of the claim that reconsideration had not occurred. Justice Bagchi pointed out that judicial officers cannot challenge the preliminary screening committee’s decisions.
Justice Nagarathna declared that no cause of action existed. “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,” she observed. The Court found no procedural errors in the situation and was uncertain whether Malhotra’s name had been excluded from consideration.
Justice Bagchi concluded that since the Supreme Court Collegium had accepted the High Court’s recommendations, judicial review was not applicable. The Bench advised Malhotra to withdraw his plea and suggested he make a representation to gather more information about his status. “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,” the Court advised.
In its order, the Court clarified that Malhotra may approach the appropriate authority within the High Court on either the administrative or judicial side.
