MP High Court: Collegium is binding, no constitutional mandate for reservations or written exams for HC judges.
In a recent development, the Madhya Pradesh High Court noted that although if the collegium system is a product of "Judge-made law," Article 141 of the Constitution mandates that every court, the executive branch, and the legislature adhere to it.
Thus, the motion made by an attorney to overturn the appointments made to the position of High Court judges last November was denied by the Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Amar Nath (Kesharwani). The court dismissed the writ on the grounds that it was unconstitutional and that the arguments were lacking.
It was emphasized that an executive civil office and a High Court judge post are not comparable. The court further stated that the appointment process for High Court judges is limited to following the procedures outlined in the constitution, as the position is a constitutional one.
The court argued that there is no need for publicity or selection exams in these situations because "no statute, statutory rule, or executive instruction can supplant or, for that matter, supplement the procedure prescribed in the Constitution for appointment of High Court Judge."
Also Read: Madhya Pradesh High Court: Section 31 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 Does Not Preclude Court From Receiving Applications Before Filing of Award
The petitioner-advocate's argument regarding the excessive forward class representation was rejected by the court on the grounds that the Constitution does not require any representation or proportionate representation for all categories in appointments. Similarly, there is no mention of SC/ST, OBC, or EWS reservations in appointments in the Constitution or the judge-made law.
"Consequently, guaranteeing a reservation or equitable and fair representation for all groups would not only violate the Constitution but also be enacted by the judiciary through the aforementioned Supreme Court rulings," the court stated.
Also Read: MP High Court Quashes FIR, Finding Prosecutrix's Version Unreliable; Didn't File Complaint Despite Repeated Forceful Rape, Married The Accused
Context
The legal representative contested the legitimacy and legality of the Ministry of Law & Justice's November 2023 notification designating Justices Vinay Saraf, Vivek Jain, Rajendra Kumar Vani, Pramod Kumar Agrawal, Binod Kumar Dwivedi, Dev Narayan Mishra, and Gajendra Singh as judges of the MP High Court in this writ petition.
On the grounds that the petitioner has not been considered for appointment, despite being eligible under Article 217(2)(b) after completing ten years of practice at the High Court, ii) no advertisement was published prior to the said appointments, iii) no SC/ST, OBC, or EWS candidate was considered for the appointment, and iv) there is an overrepresentation of forward class in the collegium, the petitioner challenged the said notification issued under Article 217(1) of the Constitution.
Additional Remarks
The Jabalpur bench clarified, citing Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association & Ors. v. Union of India (1993) as a source. "The concept of collegiums is not found in the Constitution, but came to be recognized as principal selecting body for appointment of a High Court Judge by Judge-made law in series of judgments of Apex Court," the bench stated.
The court pointed out that Article 217(1) just specifies the minimal requirements for being appointed as a High Court judge.
"The aforementioned does not imply that the collegium of the High Court and the Supreme Court will automatically consider all advocates who have practiced in the High Court for ten years or longer." The court made the evident
What's Your Reaction?
