Supreme Court dismisses "meritless" plea challenging appointment of apex court lawyers as High Court judges

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed with costs of ₹50,000 a plea challenging the practice of the Collegium recommending lawyers practicing in the top court for elevation as judges of High Courts. (Ashok Pandey v. Union of India and ors).A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and AS Oka came down on the petitioner-in-person for filing a "meritless" petition that also sought that the matter be referred to a Constitution Bench. The judges stated,"We have given the full say to the petitioner though on a bare reading of the petition it is meritless and complete wastage of judicial time. The reading sought to be put to Article 217(2) of the Constitution would amount to saying that the Supreme Court is not one of the Courts from which lawyers can be appointed to the High Court...There is nothing in the Constitution which provides the prohibition for lawyers practicing in the Supreme Court to be appointed as a Judge of the High Court."Further, every lawyer is enrolled with the Bar Council of a particular state, the order points out. .The petitioner, Advocate Ashok Pandey, argued that as per his interpretation of Article 217 of the Constitution, a person who may have been enrolled with a State Bar Council and subsequently shifted practice to the Supreme Court, is not eligible to be appointed as a High Court judge. Recent examples of top court lawyers being recommended for judgeship at the Allahabad High Court were cited, as also letters by the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association calling for such appointments. Pertinently, it was argued that the apex court needs to take cognisance of the fact that lawyers practicing before it may be better than those practicing in the High Court. .The Court at the outset stated that the petitioner being an advocate ought to have been well-versed with the law, and known better than to waste its time. "As to what the President of the Bar may say would be his views and this Court has not given any imprimatur to any aspect for the same other than the larger principle that in suitable cases Advocate practicing in this Court can be considered for appointment to the High Court. It is not as if mere filing of the petition by the petitioner would entitle him for consideration before a Constitution bench of this Court." Accordingly, the plea was dismissed and the costs imposed were directed to be deposited with the Supreme Court Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee within four weeks..[Read order]