The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a petition filed by Himachal Pradesh judicial officer Arvind Malhotra, who sought directions for consideration of his name by the High Court Collegium for appointment as a judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

Malhotra, presently serving as Principal Judge of the Family Court at Dharamshala, approached the apex court after the Supreme Court Collegium recently recommended the elevation of three judicial officers—Chirag Bhanu Singh, Bhupesh Sharma and Yogesh Jaswal—to the Himachal Pradesh High Court. He contended that officers junior to him had been recommended while his name was overlooked.

A Bench comprising Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made it clear that seniority by itself does not create a right to be elevated as a High Court judge.

“Merely because you are a senior does not mean you will be recommended. Once collegium discusses, we cannot intervene. There is secrecy involved also,” the Bench observed.

The Court noted that there was no formal rejection of Malhotra’s candidature and emphasized that appointments to constitutional courts involve the subjective assessment and satisfaction of the Collegium. Consequently, the judiciary cannot direct reconsideration of a candidate merely because another officer has been recommended.

Questioning the maintainability of the plea, the Bench remarked:

“Can Supreme Court on judicial side ask them (collegium) look into this and look into that? If this happens then where are we heading?”

The Court further observed that there may be nothing adverse against the petitioner and reiterated that Collegium decisions are not open to such judicial scrutiny.

“We will not open a Pandora’s Box by enquiring into the decisions of High Court and Supreme Court collegium,” the Bench stated.

During the hearing, the judges expressed surprise when informed that Malhotra still has around ten years of service remaining. Justice Bagchi advised him to wait, observing that he still has sufficient time for consideration in the future. Justice Nagarathna similarly urged patience.

The Bench also rejected the suggestion that the High Court Collegium should be directed to disclose reasons for not recommending him. It held that a judicial officer cannot challenge the recommendations emerging from the screening and selection process merely because he was not among the names ultimately forwarded.

Highlighting the absence of any actionable grievance, Justice Nagarathna observed that non-selection does not automatically confer a cause of action.

The Court further found no apparent procedural irregularity and noted that it was unclear whether Malhotra's name had actually been removed from the zone of consideration or whether consideration had merely been deferred.

Justice Bagchi observed that once the Supreme Court Collegium has accepted the recommendations forwarded by the High Court Collegium, judicial review at that stage is impermissible.

Before disposing of the matter, the Court suggested that the petitioner withdraw the plea and instead submit a representation seeking information regarding the status of his candidature. The Bench cautioned against making observations that could potentially affect his future prospects.

In its order, the Supreme Court granted liberty to Malhotra to approach the competent authority of the High Court, either on the administrative or judicial side, for appropriate relief or clarification regarding his case.