The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition filed by a Himachal Pradesh family court judge seeking reconsideration of his elevation by the apex court bench, saying doing so would open Pandora’s box.
After allowing the officer to withdraw and pursue remedies before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, Justices BV Nagaratna and Joymalia Bagchi said: “Once the council’s recommendation is made and discussions are held on it, how can we intervene on the judicial side? This will open a Pandora’s box.”
Justice Arvind Malhotra agreed to withdraw his plea to avail the remedy of approaching the Supreme Court. Senior advocate Balbir Singh who appeared for him stated that the Supreme Court bench on September 23, 2025 recommended three names of junior judicial officers for him. Malhotra fears that his choice may have been influenced by the allegation against him, which he claims is baseless.
According to Singh, on September 17, Malhotra received a notice from the Registrar (Vigilance) of the HP High Court to which he responded on September 25. According to him, since the HC panel had already submitted its recommendation by then, there was no opportunity to consider Malhotra’s response.
The petition in the Supreme Court came after the Supreme Court bench, on June 2, upheld the recommendations of the Supreme Court bench endangering Malhotra’s case for promotion despite it being a major one.
“Merely being in seniority does not make you eligible for promotion. The SC bench even interacted with you and asked for certain documents. There is confidentiality attached to the collegium’s proceedings. Now the recommendation of the SC bench is a supervisory circumstance. What you may now be asked to challenge is the SC panel and not the recommendation of the SC bench,” the bench said.
Singh pointed out that this is not the first time he has approached the Supreme Court seeking to be denied a promotion. In September 2024, the Supreme Court passed an order on the petition filed by him and another officer Chirag Bhanu Singh asking the high court to reconsider their names. Incidentally, Chirag Banu Singh figures in the list of three judicial officials recommended by the SC Collegium committee on June 2.
“You have to have some patience in these matters. Your nomination has not been rejected. We cannot act like an RTI and ask the Supreme Court bench to disclose to you the contents relating to your consideration,” the court said.
The court found that there was no cause of action yet. “At best, we are left to guess what was in front of the Supreme Court Bench when they interacted with you and that they may have deferred consideration. The Supreme Court Committee, being a wiser body, is privy to all the material and has decided what the Supreme Court Bench decided to be fair and equitable. If the Supreme Court Committee had not received a call, we may still have an open window.”
Singh urged the court to direct the apex court to reconsider his case as it had done in 2024. He pointed out that even the reason for the vigilance notice did not stand as the basis of claim was closed by the full bench of the apex court in his favour.
The court objected.
“Can you give a direction to the High Court or High Court bench based on your guess? We don’t want to open a Pandora’s box here about the proceedings going on in the college. In the end there may be nothing against you. You may be just imagining things. We are not privy to anything,” the bench said, allowing the officer’s plea to be withdrawn. Singh told the court that Malhotra may approach the administrative side (High Court) to find out the fate of his response to the registrar’s notice (Vigilance).
