The Supreme Court on 22 June refused to entertain a petition filed by Himachal Pradesh judicial officer Arvind Malhotra, who sought consideration of his name for appointment as a judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The Court observed that decisions relating to judicial appointments fall within the domain of the Collegium system and cannot ordinarily be subjected to judicial directions.
A Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter and ultimately disposed of the petition after the petitioner chose not to press it further.
Background of the Case
Arvind Malhotra, currently serving as Principal Judge of the Family Court in Dharamshala, approached the Supreme Court alleging that officers junior to him had been recommended for elevation while his candidature was overlooked.
Through senior advocate Balbir Singh, Malhotra argued that the Supreme Court had earlier directed reconsideration of his name in 2024. According to the petitioner, despite being called for an interaction and asked to submit documents, his name was not included when recommendations for available vacancies were forwarded.
The grievance arose after the Collegium process resulted in the recommendation of other judicial officers for appointment to the High Court.
Court's Observations
The Bench was not persuaded that any actionable grievance had arisen at this stage. Justice Nagarathna repeatedly noted that there was nothing on record indicating that Malhotra's candidature had been formally rejected.
The Court emphasized that merely being senior in service does not create a legal entitlement to elevation.
As the Bench observed,
"Merely because you are high in seniority, you are not entitled to be recommended."
Justice Nagarathna further underlined that appointments to constitutional courts involve the Collegium's assessment and satisfaction, which cannot be dictated through judicial orders.
The judge remarked,
"Can on the judicial side the Supreme Court say to the collegium you do this, you do that, you consider his name? It can't be done. It is beyond the scope of the jurisdiction."
The Court also pointed out that the petitioner still had several years of service remaining and future vacancies could arise.
Collegium Deliberations Cannot Be Reopened
During the hearing, the Bench stressed that Collegium discussions are confidential in nature and judicial intervention into those deliberations would be inappropriate.
Justice Nagarathna cautioned against scrutinizing internal Collegium proceedings, stating,
"We don't want to open a Pandora's box with regard to the proceedings of the High Court Collegium and the Supreme Court Collegium."
Justice Bagchi added that the recommendations made by the High Court Collegium had already been approved by the Supreme Court Collegium. In such circumstances, the challenge could not be directed against the earlier recommendation process alone.
The Court also noted that it remained unclear whether the petitioner's candidature had been deferred, reconsidered, or simply not selected in the current round.
Decision
After hearing the parties, the Bench indicated that no legal cause of action had been made out. The judges advised the petitioner to withdraw the matter rather than pursue a challenge that would require judicial examination of Collegium assessments.
Accepting this course, the petitioner chose not to press the writ petition. The Supreme Court recorded his request for liberty to pursue any available remedies before the competent authority or through other legal avenues.
Disposing of the matter, the Court observed that the petitioner would remain free to seek appropriate relief before the High Court on the administrative side or to pursue remedies available in law. With that observation, the petition was disposed of.
Case Details:
Case Title: Arvind Malhotra v. High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Case Number: Diary No. 36875/2026
Judge: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Decision Date: June 22, 2026
-300x169.webp)
