The Supreme Court on Monday (June 22) refused to entertain a writ petition filed by a judicial officer from Himachal Pradesh seeking the consideration of his name for elevation to the High Court, orally observing that no judicial direction can be issued to the High Court Collegium.

The grievance of the petitioner, Arvind Malhotra, presently Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharamshala, was that the High Court Collegium forwarded the names of his juniors, which were ultimately approved by the Supreme Court Collegium.

Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, for the petitioner, contended that in September 2024, the Supreme Court had directed the High Court Collegium to reconsider the names of the petitioner and another judge; however, the same has not been done as regards the petitioner.

The bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi refused to accept the argument, observing that there was nothing on record to show that the High Court Collegium had rejected the petitioner's name. Singh replied that in September 2025, the petitioner was called for an interaction and was asked to submit certain documents; however, in May, the HC Collegium forwarded the names of his juniors to the Supreme Court.

When Justice Nagarathna said that there was no rejection of the petitioner's name yet, Singh said that for the present vacancies of two promotee judges, the juniors have been recommended. "You call me for interview and give me 7 days to give documents and before waiting for that, you give a recommendation, ignoring my name without consideration," Singh said.

"Please wait, let's see what the (HC) collegium there will do. There may not be any rejection of your candidature," Justice Nagarathna said, noting that the petitioner has ten years of service left and vacancies will arise in the future.

Justice Nagarathna added that these are matters for the subjective satisfaction of the collegium, over which there can be no judicial review. "Even otherwise, these are matters where ultimately it is the subjective satisfaction of the collegium of the High Court. 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," Justice Nagarathna said.

"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 at this stage," the Judge added.

When Singh said that the petitioner was the senior-most officer in the State, Justice Nagarathna said, "Merely because you are high in seniority, you are not entitled to be recommended," Justice Nagarathna said.

Justice Bagchi pointed out that the High Court Collegium recommendation has now been approved by the Supreme Court Collegium, and hence the petitioner cannot now challenge the High Court Collegium's decision.

"We would have understood that the High Court Collegium recommendation, which you feel is not in consonance with the judicial order passed earlier. But that is now superseded by the Supreme Court recommendation. So that is actionable today is not the recommendation of the High Court."

Justice Nagarathna said that the Collegium deliberations are "secretive" and there cannot be a judicial direction to unveil what happened in the meetings.

"These are all matters of secrecy. From that collegium, it comes to the government, and one copy comes to the Collegium of this Court. How can we intervene on the judicial side? We don't know if his name has been deferred or reconsidered. You have some patience and wait," Justice Nagarathna told Singh.

The bench repeated that there was no "cause of action" for the petitioner. Justice Nagarathna, drawing on her experience in the Karnataka High Court, said judges are called at a rate of three times the number of vacancies. "If there are 3 vacancies, and nine are called, there is no cause of action for those who are not recommended," Justice Nagarathna said.

Singh reiterated that the issue was with respect to the High Court Collegium complying with the September 2024 direction of the Supreme Court.

Justice Bagchi again pointed out that there can be no interference now since the HC Collegium proposal has been fortified by the SC Collegium's approval. Hence, the challenge ought to have been to the SC Collegium's decision, Justice Bagchi stated.

The bench advised the petitioner to withdraw the petition. Singh then requested for a direction that the disciplinary proceedings, if any, initiated against the petitioner, be completed within a time-frame. He informed that the petitioner has filed an RTI application seeking information. The bench said that it will leave open the remedies for the petitioner, without expressing anything.

The matter was disposed of with the following observation :

"Have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner at length. We have considered the pleadings as well as the relief sought for by the petitioner. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would not press the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, however, liberty may be reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate reliefs before the competent authority of the High Court on the administrative side or on or seek remedies on the judicial side. The submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner is placed on record. Accordingly, the matter stands disposed."

On June 3, the Supreme Court Collegium had recommended the names of judicial officers Chirag Bhanu Singh, Bhupesh Sharma, and Yogesh Jaswal cleared for elevation to the High Court.

In 2024, two District Judges (Chirag Bhanu Singh and present petitioner Arvind Malhotra) had filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court contending that the Himachal Pradesh High Court collegium had ignored their merit and seniority while recommending names for elevation to the High Court. In September 2024, the Supreme Court had allowed their petition, requesting the HC CJ to reconsider their names.

Case : ARVIND MALHOTRA v. HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH | Diary no. 36875/2026