CHIRAG BHANU SINGH & ANR. versus HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 9 S.C.R. 150 · Decided: 06-09-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HRISHIKESH ROY · Disposal: Case Allowed
cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 9 S.C.R. 150 : 2024 INSC 660
Chirag Bhanu Singh & Anr. 
v. 
High Court of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
(Writ Petition (C) No. 312 of 2024)
06 September 2024
[Hrishikesh Roy* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Writ petition filed by two seniormost District and Sessions Judges in 
the State of Himachal Pradesh aggrieved with the non-consideration 
of their names by the High Court Collegium for elevation as 
Judges of the High Court and recommendation of names of two 
officers junior to them for elevation, in ignorance of the directions 
of reconsideration given by the Collegium of the Supreme Court. 
Whether the present writ petition is maintainable; whether elevation 
for judgeship in the High Court has to be considered collectively 
by the High Court Collegium or whether the Chief Justice acting 
individually can reconsider the same.
Headnotes†
Judiciary – Higher Judiciary – Appointment of Judges of High 
Court – Judicial Review – Absence of consultation amongst 
the members of the Collegium – Recommendation by the 
Supreme Court Collegium for reconsideration of the names of 
the two petitioners for elevation as Judges of the High Court – 
Whether the reconsideration of the proposal for the elevation 
of the petitioners was jointly made by the Collegium members 
of the High Court, following the Supreme Court Resolution 
dated 04.01.2024 – Maintainability of the present writ petition:
Held: The writ petition is maintainable as it questions the lack 
of effective consultation – The Chief Justice of a High Court 
cannot individually reconsider a recommendation and it can 
only be done by the High Court Collegium acting collectively – 
The process of judicial appointments to a superior court is not 
the prerogative of a single individual – It is a collaborative and 
participatory process involving all Collegium members and must 
reflect the collective wisdom that draws from diverse perspectives 
* Author
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 
151
Chirag Bhanu Singh & Anr. v. 
High Court of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
and ensures that principles of transparency and accountability 
are maintained – The recommendation by the Supreme Court 
Collegium for reconsideration is not expected to be addressed 
individually to all the members of the High Court Collegium – 
Such communications are naturally addressed to the Chief Justice 
of the concerned High Court however, the letter addressed to 
the Chief Justice will not enable the Chief Justice to act without 
participation by the other two Collegium members – In the present 
case, there was no collective consultation and deliberations 
amongst the members of the High Court Collegium, the three 
Constitutional functionaries of the High Court i.e. the Chief Justice 
and the two senior-most companion judges – The procedure 
adopted in the matter of reconsideration of the two petitioners 
is inconsistent with the law laid down in the Second Judges and 
the Third Judges case – The decision of the Chief Justice of the 
High Court on the suitability of the two petitioners as conveyed 
in his letter dated 06.03.2024 is an individual decision and  
therefore, vitiated – High Court Collegium to reconsider the 
names of the two petitioners for elevation as Judges of the High 
Court following the Supreme Court Collegium decision dated 
04.01.2024 and the Law Minister’s letter dated 16.01.2024. 
[Paras 18, 25, 27, 30-32]
Constitution of India – Article 217 (1), (2) – Appointment of 
judges of High Court – Judicial Review – Scope – ‘Lack of 
effective consultation’; ‘eligibility’; ‘suitability’:
Held: ‘Lack of effective consultation’ and ‘eligibility’ falls within the 
scope of judicial review whereas ‘suitability’ is non-justiciable and 
resultingly, the ‘content of consultation’ falls beyond the scope of 
judicial review. [Para 15]
Judiciary – Higher Judiciary – Appointment of judges of High 
Court – Confidentiality – Protection of sensitive informations:
Held: There is a need to protect certain sensitive information in 
matters involving appointment of judges – While transparency 
is necessary to ensure fairness and accountability, it must be 
carefully balanced with the need to maintain confidentiality – 
Disclosing sensitive information would compromise not only the 
privacy of the individual but also the integrity of the process. 
[Para 29]
152
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judiciary – Higher Judiciary – Appointment of Judges of High 
Court – Process of appointment of ju
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.