Delhi High Court imposes ₹25k fine on man seeking reasons behind Supreme Court Collegium recommendations

The Delhi High Court recently imposed a fine of ₹25,000 on a man seeking directions to the Supreme Court Collegium to provide detailed reasons behind the recommendations for the appointment of judges of the High Courts [CA Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Supreme Court of India through Secretary General]. .Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the Supreme Court Collegium.“The recommendations for elevation of a Judge of a High Court is made by the Collegium of the concerned High Court. The recommendations are considered by the Collegium of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the results of the Collegium meeting are put up in the website of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The requisite qualifications for being appointed as a Judge of the High Court are laid down under Article 217 of the Constitution of India and the Collegium of the Hon’ble Apex Court takes into consideration several factors before accepting the recommendations of the Collegium of the High Court. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the Collegium of the Hon’ble Apex Court,” the Court observed..The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Gupta, had moved the High Court seeking directions to the Supreme Court Collegium to:(a) to provide reason in detail for recommendation for High Court Judge appointment remitted by Supreme Court Of India Collegium to High Court Collegium,(b) to provide norms/qualification considered for High Court Judge appointment by Supreme Court Of India Collegium to High Courts Collegium,(c) publish monthly data related to pending, disposal of recommendation by Supreme Court Of India Collegium for high Judge appointment,(d) Kindly advise administrative side of Honourable Court to take such appropriate actions, as the Honourable Court deems fit under the circumstance..Appearing in person, Gupta had argued that in 2023, the rejection by the Supreme Court Collegium of the recommendations made by the High Courts for elevation of judgeswas about 35.29%, whereas in the year 2021, the rejection rate was only 4.38%.It was contended that such a high rate of rejection is extremely disturbing and there is a communication gap between the apex court and the High Courts regarding the criteria for appointment of High Court Judges..Justice Prasad considered the case and noted that the plea is purely a publicity interest litigation.“The only personal interest of the Petitioner as stated in the petition is that the Petitioner has a case pending in Rohini District Court, Delhi. This Court is at a loss to understand how the delay in disposal of his case in the District Court is any way connected to the reliefs sought in the instant writ petition. The Petitioner has not given any reason as to how he is a victim, and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition is only a Publicity Interest Litigation.”The Court added that the petition is a “complete waste of judicial time”. It thus ordered,“This Court is inclined to dismiss the writ petition imposing costs of ₹25,000/- on the Petitioner to be deposited with the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks from today. In case the costs imposed on the Petitioner are not paid by the Petitioner, let the same be recovered as arrears of land revenue and a compliance report be filed before this Court within four weeks thereafter.”.[Read Order]