Delhi High Court: In an appeal filed to challenge the judgment dated 27-05-2024 passed by the Single Judge wherein a writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed with costs on the ground that the appellant had no locus standi to maintain the same, a Division Bench of Manmohan, ACJ.* and Tushar Rao Gedela, J. upheld the impugned judgment and held that the appellant’s contention regarding ‘rejection of appointment of judges’ by the Supreme Court was misconceived.
Background
The appellant stated that he had the locus to file the writ petition since he was a resident of Delhi, and his cases were pending in the Courts due to lack of appointment of judges. He stated that the lack of judges in High Courts also results in a lack of supervision of the District Courts which affects their functioning.
He also stated that the rejection rate of the recommendations made by the High Courts regarding the elevation of judges to the High Court was about 35.29 percent in 2023, whereas the rejection rate was only 4.38 percent in 2021. He stated that the Supreme Court Collegium should provide reasons to the High Court Collegium for rejecting its recommendations.
The appellant also contended that the Single Judge had erroneously considered the eligibility criteria for appointment of judges under Article 217 of the Constitution as norms for appointment, which were quantifiable and comparable.
Analysis and Decision
The Court perused the impugned judgment and found that the Single Judge had correctly noted that vacancies in the High Courts had no bearing on the pendency of cases in the District Courts. Further, it was stated that by the end of this year, the actual strength of the district judiciary would virtually be at par with its sanctioned strength.
The Court stated that the law regarding the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts was well-settled and that the Supreme Court had repeatedly drawn a distinction between eligibility and suitability of a person to be appointed as a judge of the High Court.
Further, the Court stated that eligibility is an objective factor that was determined by applying the parameters or qualifications specified in Article 217(2), whereas the fitness and suitability of a person is evaluated in the consultative process.
While referring to Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 41, the Supreme Court held that the scope of judicial review of appointment of judges was limited insofar as the importance of judiciary in the process introduces the judicial element in the process, and is itself a sufficient justification for the absence of the need for further judicial review of these decisions, which is ordinarily needed as a check against possible executive excess or arbitrariness.
The Court stated that the appellant’s contention regarding the rejection by the Supreme Court was misconceived since he had failed to understand that the appointment of a judge to the High Court or Supreme Court is an integrated, consultative, and non-adversarial process, which could not be challenged in a 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.
Thus, the Court held that the Single Judge had correctly held that the Court could not sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the Supreme Court Collegium.
The Court stated that the directions sought by the appellant were not only beyond but also contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record (supra) and In Re: Appointment & Transfer of Judges (1998) 7 SCC 739.
Further, the Court stated that the publication of reasons for rejection would be detrimental to the interests and standing of people whose names had been recommended by the High Courts, as the collegium deliberates and decides based on information that is private to the individual being considered, and if such information is made public, it would have a stifling effect on the appointment process.
The Court, while dismissing the present appeal, stated that if the petitioner believed that his matters had been delayed, it was open to the petitioner to apply for an early hearing in his matters on the judicial side.
[CA Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Supreme Court of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4561, Decided on 02-07-2024]
*Judgment authored by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellant — Party in person
For Respondent — None
Buy Constitution of India HERE
