The Delhi High Court has held that reasons for rejection of recommendations for appointment of High Court judges by the Supreme Court Collegium cannot be made public as it will be “detrimental to the interests of the people concerned” and will stifle the appointment process.
The High Court made the observation while dismissing an appeal challenging an order that had rejected a petition seeking a direction to the Supreme Court Collegium to provide detailed reasons while refusing to accept recommendations for appointment of High Court judges.
The bench said the appointment of a judge to a High Court or the Supreme Court is an “integrated, consultative and non-adversarial process” which cannot be challenged in a court except on the ground of want of consultation with the named constitutional functionaries or lack of any condition of eligibility in case of an appointment or 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 (SC) 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,” a bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said.
The High Court said the single judge bench has correctly noted that this court cannot sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the Supreme Court Collegium.
It said the law regarding appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts is well settled and the apex court has drawn a distinction between eligibility and suitability of a person to be appointed as a judge of the High Court.
Petitioner Rakesh Kumar Gupta sought directions to the apex court Collegium to provide the “qualification” considered for appointment as a High Court judge and publish monthly data related to pending and disposed of recommendations.
The petitioner, who claimed to be a victim of delay in disposal of his case pending in the Rohini district court here, said the “high” rejection rate of recommendations by the Collegium was “extremely disturbing” and showed there was a communication gap between the apex court and High Courts regarding the criteria for appointment.
The petitioner claimed the rejection rate in 2023 was about 35.29% against 4.38% in 2021.
