Supreme Court Collegium recommends Chief Justices for four HCs
The Supreme Court Collegium recommended four judges for appointment as Chief Justices of the Patna, Calcutta, Bombay and Punjab & Haryana High Courts
Justice V. Kameswar Rao, currently of the Delhi High Court, was recommended as Chief Justice of the Patna High Court
Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge, currently of the Bombay High Court, was recommended as Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court
Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, currently of the Allahabad High Court, was recommended as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court
Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra, currently an acting Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, was recommended for confirmation as its permanent Chief Justice
The recommendations address a shortage of permanent Chief Justices — seven of India's 25 High Courts were functioning under acting Chief Justices at the time of the recommendation
The recommendations now proceed to the Ministry of Law and Justice and the Union government for further processing before formal notification
Article 217 — Appointment of High Court Judges and Chief Justices
Article 217 of the Constitution governs the appointment, tenure and conditions of service of High Court judges, including the Chief Justice. It provides that every High Court judge is appointed by the President by warrant under hand and seal, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the concerned state, and — for judges other than the Chief Justice — the Chief Justice of that High Court.
Key Details
- A High Court judge holds office until the age of 62 (Article 217(1))
- Article 217 also lays down eligibility: at least 10 years as a judicial officer in India, or 10 years as an advocate of a High Court (or two or more such courts in succession)
- Transfer of a High Court Chief Justice/judge from one High Court to another is separately provided under Article 222, on the recommendation of the CJI
- Comparable provision for Supreme Court judges is Article 124, which similarly requires presidential appointment after consultation
The four recommendations combine fresh elevation to the position of Chief Justice (Rao, Ghuge, Tripathi are being made Chief Justice of a different High Court from the one they currently sit in — effectively appointment plus transfer under Articles 217 and 222) and confirmation of an existing acting Chief Justice (Mishra) to a permanent post.
The Collegium System — Evolution Through the Three Judges Cases
The word "consultation" in Article 217/124 was originally understood as non-binding advice to the President. Through a series of Supreme Court rulings collectively called the "Judges Cases," this was reinterpreted to mean binding concurrence, giving rise to the collegium system that operates today without direct textual basis in the Constitution.
Key Details
- First Judges Case (S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981): held that "consultation" did not mean "concurrence," giving the executive primacy in appointments
- Second Judges Case (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, 1993): reversed this, holding that the CJI's opinion, formed after consulting senior-most judges, is binding on the President — origin of the collegium
- Third Judges Case (In re: Presidential Reference, 1998): expanded the collegium for Supreme Court appointments to the CJI plus four senior-most judges, and prescribed a similar mechanism for High Court appointments involving the CJI, two senior-most SC judges, and consultation with the concerned High Court's Chief Justice
- The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act (2014), which created the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to replace the collegium, was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India) as violative of the basic structure (judicial independence)
These four Chief Justice recommendations were made by the Supreme Court Collegium under this judicially evolved system — the executive's role is limited to processing and formally notifying the recommendation, not selecting the nominees.
Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) and Post-Recommendation Process
The Memorandum of Procedure is the administrative framework — not a statute — that governs how collegium recommendations move from the judiciary to formal presidential notification, involving the Union Law Ministry, Intelligence Bureau inputs, and the Prime Minister's Office.
Key Details
- After Collegium approval, recommendations go to the Union Ministry of Law and Justice, which processes them (including background checks) before submission to the Prime Minister and President
- The government can raise objections and return a recommendation for reconsideration once; if the Collegium reiterates it unanimously, the government is expected to notify the appointment (per Second Judges Case and subsequent practice)
- No fixed statutory timeline governs this process, which has periodically caused friction between the judiciary and executive over delays
The four recommendations must still pass through this Law Ministry-PMO-President pipeline before the judges formally assume office as Chief Justices — the Collegium's decision announced now is a recommendation, not a final appointment.
- Recommendations relate to four High Courts: Patna, Calcutta, Bombay, and Punjab & Haryana
- Justice V. Kameswar Rao (Delhi HC) → recommended Chief Justice, Patna HC
- Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge (Bombay HC) → recommended Chief Justice, Calcutta HC
- Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi (Allahabad HC) → recommended Chief Justice, Bombay HC
- Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra (acting CJ, Punjab & Haryana HC) → recommended for permanent Chief Justice, same court
- India has 25 High Courts; seven were headed by acting Chief Justices at the time of this recommendation
- Constitutional basis: Article 217 (appointment), Article 222 (transfer), Article 124 (analogous SC provision)
- Collegium origin: Second Judges Case (1993); expanded scope: Third Judges Case (1998)
- NJAC (99th Amendment, 2014) struck down: 2015