MP High Court Dismisses Challenge to Appointment of Seven High Court Judges
What the petition challenged
Advocate Maruti Sondhiya filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the Central Government notification dated 2 November 2023 by which seven persons were appointed as judges of the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Article 217(1).
The appointments concerned Justices Vinay Saraf, Vivek Jain, Rajendra Kumar Vani, Pramod Kumar Agrawal, Binod Kumar Dwivedi, Devnarayan Mishra and Gajendra Singh.
Grounds raised by the petitioner
- He had completed ten years of practice as an advocate of the High Court but had not been considered for appointment.
- No public advertisement had been issued before the seven appointments were made.
- The selection allegedly did not provide representation to SC, ST, OBC or EWS categories.
- The petitioner also questioned what he described as disproportionate representation of forward classes in the collegium and among the appointees.
Article 217: eligibility is not a right to consideration
Article 217 of the Constitution provides for the appointment and conditions of office of High Court judges. Among other requirements, Article 217(2) provides that a person must be a citizen of India and must have held judicial office in India for at least ten years or have been an advocate of a High Court, or of two or more High Courts in succession, for at least ten years.
The High Court held that satisfying the ten-year professional requirement does not mean that every eligible advocate must be considered by the High Court Collegium or the Supreme Court Collegium. Eligibility is a threshold qualification; it is not an enforceable entitlement to selection or appointment.
Why no advertisement is required
The Court rejected the contention that appointments to the High Court must be preceded by a public advertisement. It emphasized that the office of a High Court judge is a constitutional office, not an ordinary civil post under the executive.
The appointment process is governed by the Constitution and the binding judicial decisions that shaped the collegium system. The Court therefore held that an advertisement, written examination or viva voce cannot be demanded where the Constitution does not prescribe such a recruitment method for High Court judges.
Reservation and representation argument rejected
The Court also rejected the contention that the impugned appointments were invalid because candidates from specified social categories had not been appointed. It observed that the constitutional provisions governing appointments to the higher judiciary and the existing collegium framework do not prescribe reservation or proportionate representation for appointment as a High Court judge.
This does not prevent constitutional authorities from considering diversity while making recommendations. The Department of Justice has separately stated in official parliamentary material that Articles 124, 217 and 224 do not create caste- or class-based reservation for appointments to the higher judiciary.
The collegium system and current appointment framework
The High Court referred to the line of Supreme Court decisions through which the collegium system for appointments to the higher judiciary was developed. Under the present framework, appointments of High Court judges are made by the President under Article 217 after the constitutionally required consultations and in accordance with the Memorandum of Procedure governing the appointment process.
As reaffirmed by the Union Department of Justice in 2026, proposals for appointment to a High Court move through consultations involving the High Court Collegium, State constitutional authorities, the Union Government and the Supreme Court Collegium before appointment by the President.
Decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Division Bench concluded that none of the grounds entitled the petitioner to the relief sought. The writ petition was therefore dismissed in limine, meaning at the threshold without the Court proceeding to a full merits trial.
In substance, the Court found that the relief sought against the seven appointments could not be granted under the constitutional scheme governing High Court appointments.
Why the ruling matters
The decision clarifies three important aspects of High Court judicial appointments: ten years' practice is an eligibility condition rather than a guarantee of consideration; the process is constitutional and collegium-based rather than an open competitive recruitment requiring advertisement; and the governing constitutional provisions do not establish reservation quotas for High Court judges.
Case reference
Maruti Sondhiya v. Union of India & Others, Writ Petition No. 28550 of 2023, decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur on 28 May 2024.