The Supreme Court on Monday (June 22, 2026) declined to entertain a petition filed by a judicial officer from Himachal Pradesh challenging the recommendation made by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant-led Collegium to appoint certain judicial officers junior to him as judges of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

The court observed that recommendations relating to appointments to constitutional courts are based on the Collegium’s subjective assessment and are amenable to only limited judicial review in exceptional circumstances.

The Supreme Court Collegium, headed by CJI Kant and comprising the four senior-most judges of the court, had on June 2 recommended the elevation of three judicial officers — Chirag Bhanu Singh, Bhupesh Sharma and Yogesh Jaswal — as judges of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

Arvind Malhotra, who is serving as principal judge of the family court in Dharamshala, moved the top court contending that despite a September 2024 direction of the Supreme Court requiring the High Court Collegium to reconsider his candidature along with that of another judicial officer, it had instead recommended officers junior to him.

Senior-most judicial officer

Appearing for Mr. Malhotra, senior advocate Balbir Singh submitted before a Bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi that his client had been called for an interaction in September 2025 and asked to furnish certain documents. However, he said that in May this year, the High Court Collegium forwarded the names of officers junior to him to the Supreme Court Collegium for elevation, even though his client is the senior-most judicial officer in the State.

The Bench, however, pointed out that there was nothing on record to indicate that the High Court Collegium had formally rejected Mr. Malhotra’s candidature.

“There is no rejection of your candidature at this stage. Please wait for some time,” Justice Nagarathna observed, adding that Mr. Malhotra still had nearly a decade of service left and that further vacancies in the High Court were likely to arise in the future.

The court also observed that seniority alone does not confer a right to be recommended for elevation and underlined that it could not sit in judgment over the Collegium’s assessment while considering appointments to constitutional courts.

“These are matters for the subjective satisfaction of the Collegium... Can, on the judicial side, the Supreme Court say to the Collegium, ‘You do this, you do that, you consider his name’? It can’t be done. It is beyond the scope of the jurisdiction,” Justice Nagarathna, who is also a member of the Supreme Court Collegium, remarked.

‘Pandora’s Box’

The Bench further pointed out that, since the High Court Collegium’s recommendation had already been approved by the Supreme Court Collegium, the petitioner’s challenge at this stage lacked a cause of action. It also cautioned that there was a need to maintain confidentiality in the judicial appointments process to preserve its integrity.

“These are all matters of secrecy. From that collegium, it comes to the government, and one copy comes to the Collegium of this Court... We don’t want to open Pandora’s Box by enquiring into the decisions of High Court and Supreme Court Collegiums at this stage,” the Bench said.

Mr. Singh then agreed to withdraw the petition on the advice of the Bench. Accordingly, the court disposed of Mr. Malhotra’s plea with liberty to seek appropriate reliefs before the competent authority of the High Court on the administrative side or to pursue remedies on the judicial side.

“Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would not press this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. However, liberty may be reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate reliefs before the competent authority of the High Court on the administrative side or by seeking remedies on the judicial side,” the Bench recorded in its order.

In September 2024, the top court had set aside a decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court Collegium to disregard the candidature of Mr. Malhotra and another district judge for elevation to the High Court. A Bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra had held that the decision stood vitiated for want of effective consultation, as the then Chief Justice of the High Court had unilaterally decided not to reconsider their names.

Collaborative process

“The process of judicial appointments to a superior court is not the prerogative of a single individual. Instead, it is a collaborative and participatory process involving all Collegium members,” the Bench had observed.

The Bench had, however, acknowledged that the scope of judicial review in matters relating to judicial appointments is limited. It had clarified that such a review would ordinarily be warranted only in cases involving a lack of effective consultation or where questions arise regarding the eligibility of persons recommended for appointment to constitutional courts.