A division bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan said, “The law regarding appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts is well established. The Supreme Court has repeatedly drawn a distinction between a person's eligibility and suitability for appointment as a High Court judge. Eligibility is an objective factor that is determined by applying the parameters or qualifications specified in article 217(2), while the suitability of a person is assessed in the consultation process.”
Earlier, on May 27, a single bench had dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant with costs, arguing that he had no locus standi to maintain the plea.
In his appeal, the appellant stated that he has locus to file the writ petition since his cases have been pending in the courts due to lack of appointment of judges, adding that the vacancy of judges in the High Courts affects the functioning of the District Courts.
“This court is of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly pointed out that vacancies in the High Court have no bearing on the pendency of cases in the district courts. In fact, by the end of this year, the actual strength of the District's judiciary will practically match its authorized strength. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellant has no place to file the writ petition,” held the Division Bench, also comprising Justice Tushar Rao Gedela.
The appeal said that the SC Collegium in 2023 rejected 35.29 per cent of the recommendations sent by the HC Collegium regarding elevation of judges, while in the year 2021, the rejection rate was only 4.38 per cent. cent, adding that the Collegium high court should provide reasons. to the High Court Collegium for rejecting its recommendations.
In its verdict, the Delhi High Court said that the appellant's argument on 'rejection' by the SC Collegium is erroneous as it has failed to understand that the appointment of a judge to the constitutional courts is an integrated, consultative process and not contentious, which cannot be challenged in court except for lack of consultation with the appointed constitutional officers or lack of any eligibility condition in the case of an appointment, or of a transfer made without the recommendation of the Chief Justice of India.
Furthermore, the publication of the reasons for rejection will be detrimental to the interests and reputation of the persons whose names have been recommended by the High Courts, since the College deliberates and decides on the basis of information that is private to the individual concerned.
Such information, if made public, will have the effect of stifling the appointment process, the Delhi High Court said.
Dismissing the appeal, he requested the appellant to file an application for early hearing of his affairs in court if he considers that his affairs have been delayed.
Earlier, on May 27, a single bench had dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant with costs, arguing that he had no locus standi to maintain the plea.
In his appeal, the appellant stated that he has locus to file the writ petition since his cases have been pending in the courts due to lack of appointment of judges, adding that the vacancy of judges in the High Courts affects the functioning of the District Courts.
“This court is of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly pointed out that vacancies in the High Court have no bearing on the pendency of cases in the district courts. In fact, by the end of this year, the actual strength of the District's judiciary will practically match its authorized strength. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellant has no place to file the writ petition,” held the Division Bench, also comprising Justice Tushar Rao Gedela.
The appeal said that the SC Collegium in 2023 rejected 35.29 per cent of the recommendations sent by the HC Collegium regarding elevation of judges, while in the year 2021, the rejection rate was only 4.38 per cent. cent, adding that the Collegium high court should provide reasons. to the High Court Collegium for rejecting its recommendations.
In its verdict, the Delhi High Court said that the appellant's argument on 'rejection' by the SC Collegium is erroneous as it has failed to understand that the appointment of a judge to the constitutional courts is an integrated, consultative process and not contentious, which cannot be challenged in court except for lack of consultation with the appointed constitutional officers or lack of any eligibility condition in the case of an appointment, or of a transfer made without the recommendation of the Chief Justice of India.
Furthermore, the publication of the reasons for rejection will be detrimental to the interests and reputation of the persons whose names have been recommended by the High Courts, since the College deliberates and decides on the basis of information that is private to the individual concerned.
Such information, if made public, will have the effect of stifling the appointment process, the Delhi High Court said.
Dismissing the appeal, he requested the appellant to file an application for early hearing of his affairs in court if he considers that his affairs have been delayed.
