SC notice to Himachal HC after 2 district judges allege seniority ignored for elevation
- Himachal weather: After month of drought-like conditions, rain likely on this day - November 5, 2024
- Himachal’s first online wedding leaves many perplexed, how ailing man’s wish forced it to happen - November 5, 2024
- Travel on Chandigarh-Manali highway to get costlier as 2 toll plazas set to resume operations - November 5, 2024
The Supreme Court issued a notice on Monday to the Registrar General of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in response to a petition filed by two senior-most district and sessions judges. The judges, Chirag Bhanu Singh and Arvind Malhotra, alleged that despite their seniority and impeccable career records, they were overlooked by the high court collegium for elevation.
A Bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra directed the high court registrar general to provide a response to the petition filed by Singh and Malhotra. This directive came after senior advocate Arvind Datar, representing the petitioners, highlighted that “judicial officers junior to them had been recommended for appointment as high court judges under the in-service quota”.
Expressing particular interest in whether the high court collegium had considered the petitioners’ names, the Bench scheduled further hearings on July 15 to delve deeper into the matter. Singh and Malhotra, who currently serve as district and sessions judges in Bilaspur and Solan, respectively, asserted that their names were overlooked by the high court collegium for elevation.
The petitioners noted that following the decision of the top court collegium to send their names for reconsideration, the Union Law Minister communicated with the Chief Justice of the high court, urging reconsideration of the petitioner judicial officers’ names.
However, despite this communication, the high court collegium proceeded to deliberate on the “names of other and more junior judicial officers”, the petitioners claimed. They argued that this process deviated from established constitutional conventions, both procedurally and substantively.
Datar emphasised the impeccable records and seniority of the petitioners, questioning the high court collegium’s elevation process. He pointed out that despite the specific mention of the petitioners’ merit and seniority in the top court collegium’s January 4, 2024, resolution, their names were not duly considered.
Additionally, he referenced subsequent communications from the Union Ministry of Law and Justice to the Himachal Pradesh High Court, underscoring that the petitioners’ names should have been given due consideration by the high court collegium.
