A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the practice of considering minority community status when recommending candidates for High Court judgeships. The petitioners, Hari Shankar Jain and Vishnu Shankar Jain, argue that such quotas based on religion violate the principle of secularism, which is a fundamental aspect of the Indian Constitution. They contend that the Constitution does not permit appointments to state positions based on a person's religion, nor does it allow religion to be a factor in the selection process.
The PIL highlights a statement made by the Union Law Minister in Lok Sabha in December 2024, where he mentioned the government's request to High Court Chief Justices to recommend suitable candidates from Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), minorities, and women, to ensure social diversity in High Court judge appointments. The PIL argues that such a request is unconstitutional, as selections for constitutional posts should not be based on religion.
The Supreme Court collegium, which consists of the Chief Justice of India and the two most senior judges, has faced criticism for its opaqueness. In May 2025, the collegium circulated a list of 303 individuals approved for appointment as High Court judges between November 9, 2022, and November 10, 2024, and another 103 names from November 11, 2024, to April 16, 2025. This list identified individuals from minority communities and backward classes. The revelation of the religion and backwardness categories of individuals recommended for High Court judgeships was cited by the PIL petitioners to question the constitutionality of such selections.
The concept of PILs gained prominence in India through the efforts of Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and is a relaxation of the traditional rule of locus standi, allowing individuals or groups to approach the court even if they are not directly affected by the issue. However, the courts have also cautioned against the misuse of PILs, emphasizing that they should serve the public interest and not be frivolous lawsuits for monetary gain. The Supreme Court has previously dismissed petitions challenging the appointment of judges, stating that it would not interfere on the grounds of 'suitability' as opposed to 'eligibility'. The court has also clarified that having a political background is not an absolute bar to judicial appointment.
In a related development, the Union government has requested the Madras High Court collegium to include candidates from SCs, STs, minority communities, and women for appointment as High Court judges, aiming for social diversity in judicial appointments. This request followed the Supreme Court collegium's decision to return a list of nine advocates recommended by the Madras High Court collegium for fresh consideration.
