Before SC Collegium: Can Acting CJs of HCs send names for judge appointments?

Why in the News

A controversy over the conduct of Rajasthan High Court’s Acting Chief Justice, Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, has revived a recurring question before the Supreme Court Collegium: whether recommendations for High Court judge appointments sent by an Acting Chief Justice should be treated on the same footing as those sent by a permanent Chief Justice. The Collegium, headed by CJI Surya Kant and comprising Justices Vikram Nath, B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh and P.S. Narasimha, must now consider at least four names recommended by Justice Sharma, who has held the acting post for almost a year. Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta, a former Rajasthan High Court judge, has written three letters to the CJI seeking Sharma’s replacement by a chief justice from outside the state, alleging manipulation of case listings and misuse of administrative powers, allegations the CJI has said must go through institutional channels rather than the media.

Why does an Acting Chief Justice’s recommendation raise a genuine question for the Collegium?

1. Convention discourages it, but does not bar it: Acting Chief Justices conventionally do not make recommendations for judicial appointments because of their typically short tenures, though the Collegium has in the past accepted such recommendations in exceptional cases.
2. One view favours considering recommendations on merit: Sources say part of the Collegium holds that names sent by an Acting Chief Justice should not be returned solely because of the official’s title, and should instead be assessed on merit.
3. A competing view warns against normalising long acting tenures: The opposing view cautions that accepting names from Acting Chief Justices removes the pressure to appoint a permanent Chief Justice promptly, since there would be no apparent urgency.
4. Justice Sharma’s tenure and lineage make this case unusual: Justice Sharma has been Acting Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court for almost a year since September 2025, and Rajasthan is also his parent High Court, factors cited in support of considering his recommendations.

What precedent exists for how the Collegium has handled Acting Chief Justice recommendations?

1. The Bombay High Court precedent split the Collegium’s consultees: When Justice Dharmadhikari was Acting Chief Justice of Bombay High Court in 2020, he prepared a list of 22 names; two consultee judges objected in writing that no Acting Chief Justice could properly vet 22 candidates in so short a tenure, while a third consultee judge disagreed, noting Dharmadhikari’s long service on that High Court.
2. The Collegium still forwarded most of the list: Despite the objections, the Collegium headed by then CJI S.A. Bobde sent 18 of the 22 recommended names to the Centre, relying on the third consultee’s affirmative response.
3. A comparable case arose in Rajasthan in 2022: The Centre raised objections to at least 12 names sent by then Rajasthan High Court Chief Justice Akil Kureshi on the ground that they were made at the fag end of his tenure, and the Collegium headed by then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud ultimately cleared 8 of the 12 names after the Centre did not specify objections to particular candidates.

What does the present Rajasthan controversy add to the recurring question?

1. The dispute is no longer only about tenure length: Justice Mehta’s letters to the CJI allege manipulation of case listings and threats to fellow judges citing closeness to the CJI, extending the question from whether an Acting Chief Justice’s recommendations should count to whether the officeholder’s conduct in the post is itself compromised.
2. Justice Sharma’s career path preceded his return to Rajasthan: He served as a Rajasthan High Court judge from 2016, moved to Patna High Court in 2022, was sent to Punjab and Haryana High Court after the Collegium declined his 2023 request to return to Rajasthan on health grounds, and was brought back to Rajasthan under a 2025 resolution.
3. The Collegium has so far deferred adjudication: CJI Surya Kant responded to the allegations by stating that claims against a sitting judge cannot be adjudicated through the media and must go through institutional channels, leaving the underlying question of Justice Sharma’s four recommended names still pending.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court Collegium must now decide, in the specific case of Justice Sharma’s four recommendations, a question it has answered inconsistently in the past: whether an Acting Chief Justice’s nominations for High Court judgeships carry the same weight as a permanent Chief Justice’s. How it resolves this, against the backdrop of allegations against Justice Sharma’s own conduct in office, will shape whether prolonged acting tenures continue to carry recommending power in future.

Back2Basics

1. Supreme Court Collegium: An extra-constitutional, judicially evolved mechanism comprising the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most Supreme Court judges, which recommends appointments and transfers of judges to the higher judiciary.
2. Acting Chief Justice: Appointed under Article 223 of the Constitution by the President when a High Court’s Chief Justice post falls vacant or the incumbent is unable to perform duties, distinct from a permanent Chief Justice appointment.
3. Consultee judges: Sitting or former judges, typically with prior experience of the High Court concerned, whom the Collegium consults on the suitability of recommended names before finalising a list.

Matching Previous Year Question

MainsPYQ.csv: “Discuss the evolution of collegium system in India. Critically examine the advantages and disadvantages of the system on appointment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India and that of the USA.” (GS2-05, 2025, 15 marks, Microtheme: Constitutional Comparison, Subject: Polity)