Supreme Court refuses to entertain Himachal Pradesh judicial officer’s plea against Collegium selection for HC judges

The Supreme Court on Monday (June 22, 2026) refused to entertain a petition filed by a judicial officer from Himachal Pradesh challenging the recommendation of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) led by the Surya Kant Collegium to appoint some judicial officers junior to him as judges of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

The Court noted that the recommendations regarding appointments to the Constitutional Courts are based on the subjective assessment of the Collegium and can only be reviewed to a limited extent in exceptional circumstances.

A apex court bench headed by CJI Kant and comprising four senior-most judges of the court on June 2 recommended the elevation of three judicial officers — Chirag Bhanu Singh, Bhupesh Sharma and Yogesh Jaswal — as judges of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

Arvind Malhotra, who serves as the chief justice of the family court in Dharamsala, moved the apex court alleging that despite the September 2024 Supreme Court order asking the High Court Collegium to reconsider his candidature along with that of another judicial officer, it had instead recommended officers junior to him.

Chief Judicial Officer

Senior advocate Balbir Singh, appearing for Mr. Malhotra, submitted before a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi that his client was called for interaction in September 2025 and asked to provide certain documents. He, however, said that in May this year, the High Court Collegium forwarded the names of his junior officers to the Supreme Court Collegium for promotion despite his client being the highest judicial officer in the state.

The Bench, however, pointed out that there was nothing on record to indicate that the High Court Bench had formally rejected the candidature of Mr. Malhotra.

“There is no rejection of your candidature at this stage. Please wait for some time,” Justice Nagarathna observed, adding that Mr. Malhotra still has almost a decade of service left and that more vacancies in the Supreme Court are likely to arise in the future.

The court also noted that seniority itself does not confer the right to be recommended for promotion, and emphasized that it cannot decide on the collegium’s assessment when considering appointments to constitutional courts.

“These are matters for the subjective satisfaction of the collegium… From the side of the courts, can the Supreme Court say to the collegium, ‘You will do this, you will do that, you will consider his name’? That is not possible. It is beyond jurisdiction,” observed Justice Nagarathna, who is also a member of the Supreme Court collegium.

“Pandora’s Box”

The Bench further pointed out that since the recommendation of the High Court Collegium had already been approved by a colleague of the Supreme Court, the petitioner’s contention lacked a cause of action at this stage. He also pointed out the need to maintain confidentiality in the judicial appointment process to preserve its integrity.

“These are all matters of secrecy. From that collegium it goes to the government and one copy goes to the collegium of this court… We do not want to open Pandora’s box by asking the decisions of the High Court and Supreme Court collegiums at this stage,” the Bench said.

Mr. Singh then agreed to withdraw the petition on the advice of the Bench. Accordingly, the court dealt with Mr. Malhotra’s request to seek appropriate remedial measures from the appropriate High Court authority on the administrative side or to seek judicial redress.

“Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would not pursue this suit filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. However, an option may be reserved for the petitioner to seek appropriate reliefs from the competent authority of the Supreme Court on the administrative side or by seeking relief on the judicial side,” the Bench said in its order.

In September 2024, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court collegium, which had not considered the candidature of Mr. Malhotra and another district judge for elevation to the Supreme Court. A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra opined that the decision was flawed due to lack of effective consultation as the then Chief Justice had unilaterally decided not to reconsider their names.

Collaborative process

“The process of appointing judges to a superior court is not the prerogative of one individual. Instead, it is a process based on the cooperation and participation of all members of the Collegium,” the Bench observed.

However, the Bench recognized that the scope of judicial review in matters relating to the appointment of judges is limited. He clarified that such a review would normally only be warranted in cases where there is a lack of effective consultation or where questions arise regarding the eligibility of persons recommended for appointment to the Constitutional Courts.

Published – 22 Jun 2026 21:39 IST