ANNA MATHEWS AND OTHERS versus SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 463 · Decided: 10-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJIV KHANNA, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
463
ANNA MATHEWS AND OTHERS
v.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 148 of 2023)
FEBRUARY 10, 2023
[SANJIV KHANNA AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Art.217 – Collegium recommendation
– Scope and ambit of judicial review in the matter of appointment
of judges – Held: The Collegium of the Supreme Court takes the
final call after considering recommendation of High Court, inputs
of intelligence agencies, comments from the government, opinion
and comments of the judges of this Court and a number of letters
and communications from all quarters – Supreme Court while
exercising power of judicial review cannot issue a writ of certiorari
quashing the recommendation, or mandamus calling upon the
Collegium of the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision, as this
would be contrary to the ratio and dictum of the earlier binding
decisions of this Court – To do so would violate the law as declared,
as it would amount to evaluating and substituting the decision of
the Collegium, with individual or personal opinion on the suitability
and merits of the person.
Constitution of India: Art.217 – While Art.217(2) prescribes
the threshold limit or the entry point for a person to be qualified to
be a judge of a High Court, Art.217(1) prescribes the procedure to
be followed, which procedure is designed to test the fitness of a
person so to be appointed; her character, her integrity, her
competence, her knowledge and the like – When eligibility is put in
question, the question would fall within the scope of judicial review
– However, the question whether a person is fit to be appointed as
a judge essentially involves the aspect of suitability and stands
excluded from the purview of judicial review.
Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court
HELD: After the Collegium of the High Court makes a
recommendation for elevation, inputs are received from the
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 463
463
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
464
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
intelligence agencies, which conduct a background check, and
comments from the government are considered by the Collegium
of the Supreme Court consisting of the Chief Justice of India and
two senior most Judges. Opinion and comments of the Judges in
this Court conversant with the affairs of the High Court concerned
are called for in writing and placed before the Collegium.
Invariably a number of shoot down and dismissive letters and
communications from all quarters are received. Only thereafter,
and on consideration, the Collegium of the Supreme Court takes
a final call, which is then communicated to the government.
[Para 7][470-D-F]
2.  During the course of hearing before this Court, it was
accepted that a number of persons, who have had political
backgrounds, have been elevated as judges of the High Courts
and the Supreme Court, and this by itself, though a relevant
consideration, has not been an absolute bar to appointment of
otherwise a suitable person. Similarly, there have been cases
where the persons recommended for elevation have expressed
reservations or even criticised policies or actions, but this has
not been held to be a ground to treat them as unsuitable. It goes
without saying that the conduct of the judge and her/his decisions
must reflect and show independence, adherence to the democratic
and constitutional values. This is necessary as the judiciary holds
the centre stage in protecting and strengthening democracy and
upholding human rights and Rule of Law. [Para 8][470-F-H; 471-
A]
3. It is in this context that the argument that the facts were
not known and considered by the Collegium is rejected. The
petitioners have themselves stated and enclosed copy of their
representation dated 1st February 2023, albeit the Collegium of
the High Court and the Supreme Court have not, on this basis,
deemed it appropriate to withdraw the recommendation or recall
their decision. [Para 9][471-B-C]
4. This Court while exercising power of judicial review
cannot issue a writ of certiorari quashing the recommendation,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
465
or mandamus calling upon the Collegium of the Supreme Court
to reconsider its decision, as this would be contrary to the ratio
and dictum of the earlier decisions of this Court, which are binding
on this Court. To do so would violate the law as declared, as it
would amount to evaluating and substituting the decision of the
Collegium, with individual or personal opinion on the suitability
and merits of the person. [Para 10][471-C-E]
5. Th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.