NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court collegium system, under criticism for its opaqueness, faces an uncomfortable question as a new PIL challenged the quota for minority communities in the selection of persons for appointment as judges of the HCs on the ground that it ran counter to the cardinal constitutional principle of ‘secularism’.Though the SC collegium – the CJI and two most senior judges – had in the past picked advocates from SCs, STs, OBCs and from minority communities and recommended their names for HC judgeship, the official revelation of religion and types of backwardness of persons recommended for HC judgeship nearly four months ago by the SC was cited by PIL petitioners – Hari Shankar Jain and Vishnu Shankar Jain – to question the constitutionality of such selection.”Constitution neither permits for making appointment to an office or post under the state based on the person’s religion or nor allows a person’s religion to be a ground for consideration in the process of selection. The Constitution does not make any distinction between majority and minority community in the appointments to any govt post,” they said.The PIL referred to Union law minister’s statement in Lok Sabha on Dec 2024 that govt has requested the chief justices of the HCs to send names of suitable candidates belonging to SCs, STs, OBCs, minorities and women to the SC collegium for considering them for appointment as HC judges to ensure social diversity in the appointment of judge. The PIL said such a request was unconstitutional as selections to constitutional posts cannot be based on a person’s religion.On May 5, the SC collegium circulated a list containing 303 names of persons approved for appointment as HC judges between Nov 9, 2022 and Nov 10, 2024 and another 103 names from Nov 11, 2024 to Apr 16, 2025. The list identified those from the minority communities the backward classes, who had figured among the recommendations.Referring to the list of names made public by the SC regarding recommendations made from 2022 till 2025, the petitioner said as many as 24 appointments appear to have been made from minority communities based on their religion. In contrast, only 13 persons from SC/ST category were recommended for judgeship, it said, and alleged that injustice has been done to those belonging to Dalit and tribal communities.The PIL asked – “Whether the SC Collegium acted unconstitutionally and illegally in conceding to the request of the central govt to consider names of persons belonging to minority communities?” – and requested the SC on the judicial side to restrain govt from appointing the individuals, who have been recommended based on their religion, as HC judges.
