The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently rejected a petition that contested a notification issued by the Central government the previous year regarding the appointment of seven High Court judges.
“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, contested a notification issued by the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, in November 2023.
The notification pertained to the appointment of Justices Vinay Saraf, Vivek Jain, Rajendra Kumar Vani, Pramod Kumar Agrawal, Binod Kumar Dwivedi, Devnarayan Mishra, and Gajendra Singh as judges of the High Court.
The Court observed that Article 217 of the Constitution of India stipulates that an advocate with a minimum of ten years of practice can be elevated to the position of a High Court judge.
However, the Court clarified that this does not mean that all advocates who have practiced in the High Court for at least ten years must be necessarily considered by the Collegium of the High Court or the Supreme Court.
The Court then examined the origins of the Collegium system, noting that it was recognized as the principal selecting body for the appointment of High Court judges through judge-made law in a series of judgments by the apex court.
The Court also dismissed the argument that the Collegiums at the High Court and Supreme Court had a disproportionately large representation of the 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.
