SC: Collegium's selection process is not open to judicial scrutiny, RTI

The Supreme Court of India recently dismissed a petition filed by Arvind Malhotra, a senior judicial officer from Himachal Pradesh, seeking reconsideration of his elevation to the High Court. The court emphasized that interfering with the collegium's recommendation would open a "Pandora’s box" and warned against undermining the independence of the judicial appointments process. The bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi, ruled that once the collegium makes its recommendation, the judiciary must respect its decision without further intervention.

Malhotra, who had previously challenged the elevation of junior officers over his own, argued that the high court collegium might have been influenced by an unfounded allegation against him. His legal team, led by senior advocate Balbir Singh, claimed that the high court collegium had already finalized its recommendations on September 23, 2025, without considering Malhotra's response to a vigilance notice issued by the Registrar (Vigilance). The notice, dated September 17, 2025, prompted Malhotra to submit his reply on September 25, but by then, the collegium had already moved forward with its selections.

The Supreme Court collegium had earlier endorsed the high court's recommendations on June 2, 2025, thereby jeopardizing Malhotra's chances of elevation despite his seniority. The bench clarified that seniority alone does not guarantee elevation, and that the collegium's decision is final. It noted that the high court collegium had already engaged with Malhotra and reviewed relevant documents, maintaining the confidentiality of its proceedings. The court stressed that the collegium's decision is based on its subjective assessment and that neither the high court nor the Supreme Court can second-guess it.

In a related matter, the court acknowledged that Malhotra had previously sought reconsideration of his candidacy in September 2024. At that time, the Supreme Court had directed the high court to reassess the candidatures of Malhotra and another officer, Chirag Bhanu Singh. Interestingly, Singh was among the three judicial officers recommended by the Supreme Court collegium on June 2, 2025. This highlights the complex interplay between the collegiums and the potential for conflicting outcomes.

The bench also addressed the broader implications of the case, emphasizing that the selection process for judges of constitutional courts is beyond judicial scrutiny and not subject to the Right to Information (RTI) Act. It reiterated that the collegium's decisions are confidential and that the judiciary must refrain from probing into the rationale behind such selections. The court advised Malhotra to approach the administrative side of the high court for clarity regarding the status of his response to the vigilance notice.

The ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to preserving the autonomy of the collegium system, which is designed to ensure impartial and merit-based appointments. However, it also raises questions about transparency and accountability in the selection process. While the court maintains that the collegium's decisions are final, the ongoing tension between seniority and merit remains a point of contention within the legal community.

Looking ahead, Malhotra may continue to seek clarification from the high court's administrative authorities. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for future challenges to collegium decisions, particularly in cases where allegations of bias or unfairness are raised. As the legal landscape evolves, the balance between judicial independence and procedural fairness will remain a critical area of focus for both the judiciary and the public.