Delhi HC dismisses plea demanding SC Collegium disclose reasons for rejection
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking directions to the Supreme Court Collegium to disclose reasons for rejecting recommendations forwarded by the HC Collegium for appointment of judges.
A Division Bench presided over by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan said, “The law with respect to appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts is well-settled. The Supreme Court has repeatedly drawn a distinction between eligibility and suitability of a person to be appointed as a Judge of the High Court. Eligibility is an objective factor which is determined by applying the parameters or qualifications specified in Article 217(2), whereas, fitness and suitability of a person is evaluated in the consultative process.”
Earlier on May 27, a single-judge Bench had dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant with costs, on the grounds that he had no locus standi to maintain the plea.
In his appeal, the appellant claimed that he has locus to file the writ petition as his cases have been pending in courts due to lack of appointment of judges, adding that vacancy of judges in High Courts, affects the functioning of the District Courts.
“This court finds that the learned Single Judge has correctly noted that vacancies in High Court have no bearing on the pendency of cases in the District Courts. In fact, by the end of this year, the actual strength of the District judiciary is virtually going to be at par with its sanctioned strength. Consequently, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellant has no locus to file the writ petition,” held the Division Bench, also comprising Justice Tushar Rao Gedela.
The appeal said that the SC Collegium in 2023 rejected 35.29 per cent of the recommendations forwarded by the HC Collegium regarding elevation of judges, whereas in the year 2021, the rejection rate was only 4.38 per cent, adding that the apex court Collegium should provide reasons to the High Court Collegium for rejecting its recommendations.
In its verdict, the Delhi High Court said that the appellant’s contention regarding “rejection” by the SC Collegium is misconceived as he has failed to understand that the appointment of a Judge to constitutional courts is an integrated, consultative and non-adversarial process, which cannot be challenged in court of law except on the ground of want of consultation with the named constitutional functionaries or lack of any condition of eligibility in the case of an appointment, or of a transfer being made without the recommendation of the Chief Justice of India.
Further, publication of reasons for rejection will be detrimental to the interests and standing of people whose names have been recommended by the High Courts, as the Collegium deliberates and decides on the basis of information which is private to the individual being considered.
Such information, if made public, will have the effect of stifling the appointment process, the Delhi High Court said.
Dismissing the appeal, it asked the appellant to file an application for early hearing in his matters on the judicial side if he believes that his matters have been delayed.