Supreme Court Says Collegium Decisions Beyond Judicial Review, Refuses To Interfere In Selections

Last Updated:June 23, 2026, 07:31 IST

Supreme Court declined to hear a Himachal judicial officer's plea over HC elevation, stressing collegium recommendations are confidential and based on subjective assessment.

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a petition filed by a Himachal Pradesh judicial officer challenging the collegium process for elevation of judges to the High Court, observing that judicial appointments are matters of the collegium’s “subjective satisfaction" and cannot be subjected to directions from the court on its judicial side.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi made the observations while hearing a plea by Arvind Malhotra, currently serving as Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharamshala.

Malhotra had alleged that the Himachal Pradesh High Court Collegium had ignored his candidature and instead recommended officers junior to him for appointment as judges of the High Court.

The petitioner argued through Senior Advocate Balbir Singh that despite being among the senior-most judicial officers in the state, his name was not forwarded, while the names of his juniors were ultimately approved by the Supreme Court Collegium.

During the hearing, the bench repeatedly emphasised that the court could not intervene in the collegium’s decision-making process.

“These are matters where ultimately it is the subjective satisfaction of the collegium of the High Court. Can, on the judicial side, the Supreme Court say to the collegium, ‘you do this, you do that, you consider his name’? It can’t be done. It is beyond the scope of the jurisdiction," Justice Nagarathna observed.

The court noted that there was nothing on record to indicate that the High Court Collegium had formally rejected Malhotra’s candidature.

Singh submitted that the petitioner had been called for an interaction and asked to furnish documents, but before any further action, the names of his juniors were recommended for elevation.

However, Justice Nagarathna pointed out that the developments cited by the petitioner suggested that his candidature had in fact been considered.

“There is no rejection of your candidature at this stage. Please wait, let’s see what the collegium there will do. There may not be any rejection of your candidature," she said.

The bench also rejected the argument that seniority alone entitled a judicial officer to be elevated to the High Court.

“Merely because you are high in seniority, you are not entitled to be recommended," Justice Nagarathna remarked.

A significant part of the hearing focused on the confidentiality of collegium deliberations.

The Supreme Court underscored that the internal discussions and assessments made by collegiums are not matters that can be scrutinised through judicial proceedings.

“We don’t want to open a Pandora’s box with regard to the proceedings of the High Court Collegium and the Supreme Court Collegium at this stage," Justice Nagarathna said.

She further observed that the collegium process involves confidential deliberations and that courts cannot compel disclosure of what transpired during such meetings.

“These are all matters of secrecy. From that collegium, it comes to the government, and one copy comes to the Collegium of this Court. How can we intervene on the judicial side? We don’t know if his name has been deferred or reconsidered," she said.

Justice Bagchi also noted that the recommendations made by the High Court Collegium had already been approved by the Supreme Court Collegium, making it difficult to challenge the earlier stage of the process.

The bench observed that there was presently no “cause of action" available to the petitioner, as his candidature might still be under consideration or could have been deferred for a later stage.

Following the court’s observations, the petitioner chose not to press the writ petition and sought liberty to pursue appropriate remedies before the competent authority of the High Court on the administrative side or through other legal avenues.

Recording the submission, the Supreme Court disposed of the matter, leaving open the petitioner’s remedies without expressing any opinion on the merits of his claims.

The case stemmed from the recent recommendation and approval of three judicial officers, Chirag Bhanu Singh, Bhupesh Sharma and Yogesh Jaswal, for elevation as judges of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

About the Author

Vani Mehrotra

Vani Mehrotra is the Deputy News Editor at News18.com. She has more than 10 years of experience in national and international news and has previously worked on multiple desks.

News india Supreme Court Says Collegium Decisions Beyond Judicial Review, Refuses To Interfere In Selections

Read More