MP HC Junks Plea Challenging Appointment Of Seven High Court Judges

In a notable ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected a writ petition challenging the appointment of seven judges to the High Court. The case, titled Maruti Sondhya vs. Union of India and Others (Writ Petition No. 28550 of 2023), was decided by Acting Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Amar Nath (Kesharwani) on May 28, 2024.

 

Background of the Case

 

The petitioner, Maruti Sondhiya, represented by Advocate Shri Uday Kumar, contested the legality of a notification issued by the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law & Justice, which appointed seven judges to the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Article 217(1) of the Constitution.

 

Key Legal Issues

 

1. Eligibility and Consideration: The petitioner argued that despite being eligible under Article 217(2)(b) of the Constitution, having completed ten years of practice in the High Court, he was not considered for appointment.

 

2. Lack of Advertisement: It was contended that no advertisement was issued prior to the appointments, which the petitioner claimed was a procedural lapse.

 

3. Representation of Categories: The petitioner argued that SC/ST, OBC, or EWS candidates were not considered, leading to inadequate representation of these categories on the Bench.

 

4. Overrepresentation of Forward Class: Allegations were made regarding an overrepresentation of the forward class among the members of the collegium and the appointed judges.

 

Court's Decision

 

The court dismissed the petition in limine after hearing the arguments. Here are the key observations and decisions:

 

1. Eligibility Criteria: The court clarified that while ten years of practice is the minimum eligibility for an advocate to be considered for elevation as a High Court Judge, it does not mandate that all eligible advocates must be considered by the collegium.

 

2. Collegium System: The court acknowledged that the collegium system, although not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, has been established through judicial precedents and is the principal body for selecting High Court judges. It referenced several Supreme Court judgments to support this stance.

 

3. Advertisement and Selection Process: The court rejected the argument about the lack of advertisement, stating that the office of a High Court Judge is a constitutional office filled solely by the procedure prescribed in the Constitution, which does not necessitate advertisements or written tests.

 

4. Representation of Categories: The court held that neither the Constitution nor judicial precedents mandate reservation or adequate representation of all categories in judicial appointments. Therefore, the petitioner's argument regarding the representation of SC/ST, OBC, or EWS categories was found to be without merit.

 

5. Forward Class Representation: The court observed that the Constitution does not require specific representation of categories within the collegium or among the appointed judges. It emphasized that any attempt to enforce such representation would violate constitutional provisions.

 

Important Observations

 

The court stressed the importance of merit in judicial appointments, quoting from the Supreme Court's judgment in the Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India case. The principle of meritocracy, the court noted, ensures that appointments are based on competence and suitability, which are crucial for upholding the judiciary's integrity and effectiveness.

 

In summary, the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision reaffirms the constitutional framework for judicial appointments and underscores the significance of merit-based selection in maintaining the judiciary's impartiality and efficiency.