Judges’ postings, collegium notes at Himachal Pradesh High Court come under SC scrutiny

A bench of Supreme Court Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the case and reserved the case for verdict on August 6.

In May this year, two judicial officers had moved the Supreme Court in a writ petition alleging that despite their seniority and a directive from the SC Collegium to the HC Collegium to “reconsider” their names, their candidature was not considered for appointment as HC judges. This effectively put the HC collegium’s actions and the communication from the SC collegium under judicial scrutiny.

On July 12, 2023, the SC Collegium considered five names from the district judiciary, sent from the HC collegium in Himachal Pradesh, for elevation as HC judges: Ranjan Sharma, Bipin Chandra Negi, Chirag Bhanu Singh, Arvind Malhotra and Rakesh Kainthla.

While the SC Collegium cleared three names, those of Singh and Malhotra were deferred. On July 28, 2023, the government cleared the three recommended names. The two names came up for consideration before the SC Collegium again on January 4, 2024. However, this time, the SC Collegium is learnt to have “remitted” the names back to the High Court for “reconsideration.”

On January 16, 2024, Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal wrote to Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh HC Justice MS Ramachandra Rao quoting from the SC collegium resolution that the two names “deserve to be remitted to the Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh for reconsideration.” And that “fresh recommendations be sent against the unfulfilled vacancies for service quota (from the district judiciary) in the Himachal Pradesh HC.”

However, in response, Justice Rao is learnt to have communicated to CJI Chandrachud that the two names would not be endorsed again by the HC. This prompted the two judicial officers to first make representations and then move the SC in a writ petition arguing that they in the least had a “right to be considered” for elevation.

The petitioner’s contention is that the CJ Rao did not put the case before the collegium he heads and decided unilaterally.

During the hearing on their case, the SC bench called for a report from the Registrar General of the HC and the SC Collegium resolution of January 4.

However, those familiar with the process, point out that the HC, “erred on the side of caution,” since the SC when it sends a name back for “reconsideration” often doesn’t mention the grounds which led to the call for reconsideration. “When a name is sent back for reconsideration, how will HC know on what grounds it should reconsider. What are the changed circumstances?” a source said.

Incidentally, when a name is proposed by the HC collegium, initial inquiries are made at the state level. However, the entire file, with the state government’s remarks and the crucial intelligence bureau report are only made available by Law Ministry to the SC Collegium.