The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that suitability of a candidate for being appointed as a Judge of a High Court cannot be questioned as the recommendation of the High Court collegium is not subject to judicial review.
Giving this ruling a three-Judge Bench comprising Justices B.S. Chauhan, J. Chelameswar and M.Y. Eqbal said “judicial review is permissible only on assessment of eligibility and not on suitability.”
However, taking note of the fact that the list of 12 names sent by the Madras High Court had been returned for fresh consideration, the Bench disposed of an appeal filed by the Registrar General of the Madras High Court against the order of status quo on processing of the 12 names.
The Bench said “we appreciate the fair stand taken by S.Prabhakaran, senior counsel, (appearing for senior advocate R. Gandhi) before this court that suitability cannot be a subject matter of judicial review.
It is not a case where the writ petitioners could not wait till the maturity of the cause i.e. decision of the collegium of this court. They took a premature step by filing writ petitions seeking a direction to Union of India to return the list sent by the collegium of the Madras High Court without further waiting its consideration by the Supreme Court collegium.”
Writing the judgment, Justice Chauhan said “Mr. Prabhakaran, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, submitted that the advocates - recommendees were not suitable for appointment as a Judge of the Madras High Court; and the collegium failed to consider the various other eligible and suitable advocates practicing before the Madras High Court having different social backgrounds.”
The Bench said “The collegium has a duty to consider the eligible and suitable advocates belonging to all sections of the society to ensure wider representation. It may have larger social dimensions if certain segments of society are not adequately represented on the Bench.” Accepting Mr. Prabhakaran's submissions, the Bench said “Appointments cannot be exclusively made from any isolated group nor should it be per-dominated by representing a narrow group. Diversity therefore in judicial appointments to pick up the best legally trained minds coupled with a qualitative personality, are the guiding factors that deserve to be observed uninfluenced by mere considerations of individual opinions.”
The Bench said “in view of the subsequent developments viz the Supreme Court collegium vide Resolution dated February 13, 2014 has returned the whole list of advocates as well as of the judicial officers, with intimation to the Chief Minister and the Governor of State of TN with an observation that the new Chief Justice of Madras High Court as and when appointed, would re-look into the matter and send recommendations in consultation with two senior most colleagues after taking into consideration all relevant facts.”
The Bench criticised the conduct of Justice C. S. Karnan who walked into the court hall during the hearing of the writ petition. It said “the conduct of a sitting Judge raised a negative murmur about the maintenance of propriety in judicial proceedings.
The sudden unfamiliar incident made us fume inwardly on this raw unconventional protest that was unexpected, uncharitable and ungenerous, and to say the least it was indecorous.
The learned Judge may have found himself caught in a conflict of class or caste structure and it appears that matured patience might have given way to injure rules of protocol, but that is not the issue that has to be answered by us. It is said that immense dignity is expected, and weaknesses or personal notions should not be exposed so as to affect judicial proceedings.”
