The Supreme Court has ruled that seniority does not automatically entitle a judicial officer to be promoted as a High Court judge, dismissing a petition from a senior judge in Himachal Pradesh who challenged the recommendation of his juniors.
A division bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi declined to entertain the plea filed by Arvind Malhotra, currently serving as the Principal Judge of a family court in Dharamshala. The court emphasized that judicial promotions depend entirely on the subjective satisfaction of the recommending collegium and involve strict confidentiality, making judicial intervention inappropriate.
Malhotra moved the apex court after the Supreme Court Collegium, on June 3, recommended three other judicial officers—Chirag Bhanu Singh, Bhupesh Sharma, and Yogesh Jaswal—for elevation to the Himachal Pradesh High Court, bypassing his seniority.
Limits of Judicial Review in Collegium Decisions
During the hearing, the bench observed that there was no active cause of action. Justice Nagarathna compared the judicial selection process to standard recruitment procedures where more candidates are shortlisted than there are available vacancies, pointing out that unselected candidates cannot legally challenge final selections when no procedural flaws are visible.
Representing Malhotra, Senior Advocate Balbir Singh argued that the Supreme Court had previously requested the High Court Collegium to reconsider his client’s candidacy following a representation. However, the bench questioned the basis of this claim. Justice Bagchi explained that candidates cannot challenge the decisions of the screening committee responsible for preparing candidate names for the recommending body. He added that because the Supreme Court Collegium has already accepted the High Court’s recommendations, judicial review is no longer applicable.
The bench further warned that directing the collegium to review specific candidacies would open a Pandora’s box of inquiries into confidential judicial appointments.
Court Advises Patience and Administrative Remedies
The Supreme Court expressed surprise that Malhotra had filed the petition despite having ten years of service remaining before his retirement. Advising the judicial officer to show patience, the bench noted that his candidacy may have simply been deferred and that he still has ample time to be considered for a future judgeship.
To avoid negatively impacting his future prospects, the court suggested that Malhotra withdraw his lawsuit and instead submit an administrative reminder representation to inquire about the status of his case. In its final order, the bench permitted Malhotra to withdraw the petition with the liberty to approach the appropriate High Court authorities on either the administrative or judicial side.
