Anna Mathews & Ors. vs Supreme Court of India & Ors.
Background
A group of petitioners, including advocates, filed writ petitions directly in the Supreme Court under Article 32 seeking to stop the appointment of a particular person, recommended by the Collegium, as an Additional Judge of the Madras High Court. They objected to the candidate's suitability, citing the person's political background and past statements, and said they had sent a representation dated 1 February 2023 to the Collegium raising these facts. They asked the Court to quash the recommendation or direct the Collegium to reconsider it.
Decision Breakdown
The Court dismissed both petitions at the admission stage, holding that the law is already settled. Relying on Mahesh Chandra Gupta (2009), M. Manohar Reddy (2013) and the Nine-Judge Bench decision in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (1993), it explained the distinction between "eligibility" and "suitability": eligibility (the objective qualifications in Article 217(2), such as ten years as an advocate or judicial officer) can be examined by a court, but suitability (a person's character, integrity, competence and fitness) is assessed in the consultative process and is not open to judicial review. Judicial review lies only for lack of eligibility or lack of effective consultation, not on the content of that consultation. The Court described how the Supreme Court Collegium considers High Court recommendations along with intelligence inputs, government comments and written opinions of judges familiar with that High Court, and noted that having a political background, or having criticised policies, has never by itself been treated as an absolute bar. It rejected the argument that the Collegium was unaware of the facts, since the petitioners' own representation had been before it and the Collegium chose not to withdraw its recommendation. Issuing a writ to quash or reconsider would amount to substituting the Court's personal opinion for the Collegium's, contrary to binding precedent. The Court added that the person had already taken oath as a judge, and that every judge is bound by the oath and by Article 51A to uphold secularism, equality and constitutional values, and is "judged every day" through open courts and reasoned judgments.
Lesson Learnt
Citizens can challenge a judicial appointment in court only if the candidate lacks the basic constitutional qualifications or the mandatory consultation did not happen; whether a person is a "good" or "suitable" choice is for the Collegium, not for litigation. The remedy for concerns about a candidate is to place them before the Collegium, which this Court will not second-guess.