Madhya Pradesh High Court rejects plea challenging appointment of 7 High Court judges

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a petition challenging a notification issued by the Central government last year for the appointment of seven High Court judges [Maruti Sondhiya vs Union of India and Others]..The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Amar Nath (Kesharwani) dismissed the petition in limine (at the threshold) and held that the prayer cannot be granted. “This Court has no manner of doubt that the relief sought by petitioner cannot be granted and, therefore, the petition is dismissed in limine,” it said..The petition filed by advocate Maruti Sondhiya challenged a notification issued by the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice in November 2023 for the appointment of Justices Vinay Saraf, Vivek Jain, Rajendra Kumar Vani, Pramod Kumar Agrawal, Binod Kumar Dwivedi, Justice Devnarayan Mishra and Gajendra Singh as judges of the High Court..Sondhiya had laid the challenge on the following grounds:Despite having completed ten years of practice in the High Court, he (Sondhiya) was not considered for appointment as a judge of the High Court.No advertisement was issued before appointing the seven judges.None of the candidates from Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC) or from Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) were considered, thus denying representation of all categories on the Bench.There is overrepresentation of the forward class not only among the members of the Collegium but also among the judges appointed. .The Court noted that Article 217 of the Constitution of India states that an advocate with minimum of ten years of practice can be elevated as a High Court judge.However, the Court said that the same does not imply that all advocates who have practiced in the High Court for at least ten years or more must necessarily be considered by the Collegium of the High Court or the Supreme Court..It then looked into the origins of the Collegium and noted that the same came to be recognized as the principal selecting body for the appointment of a High Court judge by judge-made law, in a series of judgments by the apex court.“Thus, the collegium owes its existence and legal sanctity to Judge-made law which under Article 141 of the Constitution is the law of the land and is binding not only on every court but also the executive and the legislature,” it said. .On the argument regarding a lack of advertisement for filling the judicial vacancies, the Court remarked that the petitioner appeared to be under a misconception that the office of a High Court Judge is akin to a civil post under the executive.This is far from reality as the office of High Court Judge is a Constitutional office which is filled up only and solely by the procedure prescribed in the Constitution and not elsewhere, it said.“No statute or statutory rule or executive instruction can supplant or for that matter supplement the procedure prescribed in the Constitution for appointment of High Court Judge. Accordingly, since the Constitution does not prescribe issuance of any advertisement or conduction of any selection by way of written test or viva voce, the procedure being followed presently cannot be found fault with,” the Court added..Dealing with the contention regarding the lack of representation of all categories (SC/ST, OBC or OBC) in the appointments, the Court said that neither the Constitution nor the judge-made law prescribes for any reservation or adequate representation of all categories in the process of appointment.“Thus, providing for any such reservation or adequate/proportionate representation of all categories, would not only be dehors to the Constitutional provision but also the Judgemade law vide aforesaid decisions of Apex Court. Thus, this ground of petitioner also does not hold any water,” it said..The Court also rejected the argument that Collegiums at the High Court and Supreme Court had a very large representation of forward class.“As already held above, the Constitution not prescribing for any reservation or adequate or proportionate representation of all categories, any such attempt to accede to the prayer of petitioner would amount to violating the constitutional provisions,” the High Court said..Advocate Uday Kumar represented the petitioner. Deputy Advocate General BD Singh represented the State of Madhya Pradesh..[Read Judgment]