12 years on, Madras High Court junks challenge to selection of 23 district judges over ‘vague’ allegations

“Once a Selection Committee has been formed to undertake the process of assessment and selection of candidates, their discretion is normally not liable to be interfered with unless serious and very valid concerns are raised,” the bench said on April 18, adding that the grievances raised by the petitioners were “vague and general in nature.”

Background

The litigation traces back to the recruitment process for 23 district judge posts in Tamil Nadu. The selection process included a written examination held on July 6, 2013, followed by viva voce.

The provisional selection list was published on August 6, 2013, and the selected candidates were appointed on January 2, 2014. Petitioners Bharathirajan and Kannan, both aspirants to the post, argued that their ranks had drastically fallen after the interview stage, suggesting arbitrariness in the allocation of viva voce marks.

Bharathirajan, who ranked 26 after the written examination, eventually slipped to Rank 67, while Kannan fell from Rank 20 to Rank 73 in the final merit list after interview marks were added. The petitioners contended that the selection process vested excessive discretion in the interview committee and lacked transparency.

They sought quashing of the selection list and the appointments, along with directions for a fresh viva voce process with safeguards such as videography and publication of interview marks.

Rejected

Rejecting the challenge, the Madras High Court bench said courts should be slow to interfere in selections conducted by committees comprising senior judges unless there is clear evidence of mala fides or illegality.

“The selection of the judges is normally entrusted to senior judges who address the process in right earnest following the procedure outlined for such selection,” it said. The bench noted that the selected candidates had already served in the judiciary for more than 11 years and observed that the petitions largely contained broad allegations without concrete material against most of the appointees.

However, the Madras High Court separately examined allegations raised against four selected candidates.

Challenge to eligibility of 2 judges rejected

• The petitioners alleged that two of the four candidates did not possess the mandatory seven years of legal practice required under the 2013 recruitment notification.
• They argued that both candidates lacked substantial courtroom practice and had filed only limited appearances before courts.
• The Madras High Court rejected the contention, holding that the 2013 notification only required candidates to produce certificates from presiding officers confirming the duration of practice. Both candidates had complied with that requirement.
• The bench observed that while broader criteria assessing the “quality” of legal practice may be desirable, such requirements could not be introduced retrospectively.
• Ideally, there should be some “amplification” of this requirement, the Madras High Court said, noting that subsequent recruitment notifications issued in 2023 had already strengthened eligibility norms for district judge recruitment.
• The court also took note of additional documents produced by one of the two candidates, including affidavits and records of appearances, to demonstrate her legal practice before appointment.

Court examines allegations against another judge

• One of the central allegations in the case concerned a district judge who was accused of suppressing details of a 2004 criminal case and a pending civil suit while applying for the post.
• The court examined records relating to the case registered under various Indian Penal Code (IPC) provisions arising out of an altercation between advocate groups.
• It noted that although a chargesheet had been filed, there was no evidence to show that a summons had ever been served on this person.
• The bench referred to an earlier 2016 bench judgment in a connected matter, which had already concluded that he had not deliberately suppressed the criminal case because he was likely unaware of the proceedings.
• The criminal case was eventually withdrawn in 2017.
• The present bench held that the earlier finding on the absence of deliberate concealment had attained finality.
• The Madras High Court also dealt with allegations that the said candidate had failed to disclose a civil suit in which he was arrayed as a defendant.
• After examining the records, the court found that the summons in the civil suit had not been personally served on him and that substituted service alone was insufficient to establish actual knowledge of the proceedings.
• Accordingly, the court concluded that the allegation of suppression failed.
• However, it left it open to the high court’s administrative side to independently decide pending complaints relating to his conduct.

Non-disclosure of criminal case

• The Madras High Court also examined allegations against one of the candidates, who admitted that he had not disclosed an earlier criminal case in which he was acquitted in 2005.
• The candidate/judge argued that the case was false, more than a decade old, and had already ended in acquittal before the recruitment process. He further claimed that he had disclosed the facts before the selection committee during the interview stage.
• The Madras High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, which allows employers and courts to assess whether suppression of past criminal cases should automatically disqualify a candidate, particularly where the candidate has been acquitted.
• While acknowledging that he had omitted details of the case in his application form, the Madras High Court bench indicated that such omission could not be viewed mechanically in light of the acquittal and surrounding circumstances.

Court declines to interfere after a decade

Throughout the judgment, the Madras High Court repeatedly emphasised the passage of time and the institutional consequences of disturbing judicial appointments after more than a decade of service.

The court held that the petitioners had failed to establish any illegality serious enough to invalidate the selection process or justify reopening appointments made in 2014. The writ petitions were consequently dismissed.