Supreme Court Collegium Approves 12 Additional Judges as Permanent in Four High Courts

Why in News

On September 23, 2026, the Supreme Court Collegium — headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and comprising Justices Vikram Nath and B.V. Nagarathna — resolved to recommend the appointment of 12 Additional Judges as Permanent Judges in the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh (5), Kerala (5), Uttarakhand (1), and Gauhati (1). Earlier, on September 10, 2026, the same Collegium had recommended 15 Judicial Officers for appointment as High Court Judges, of whom five were women — signalling a renewed emphasis on diversity in the higher judiciary.

Background

High Court judges in India are appointed under Article 217 of the Constitution, which mandates consultation between the President, the CJI, the Governor of the State, and (for posts other than Chief Justice) the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned. Additional judges — appointed under Article 224 for terms not exceeding two years to address temporary increases in work — are converted to Permanent Judges on the recommendation of the Collegium after demonstrating satisfactory performance.

The Collegium system is a judge-made mechanism that emerged from three landmark constitutional decisions, collectively called the Three Judges Cases:

• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) — First Judges Case; held that "consultation" did not mean "concurrence," giving the executive primacy.
• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) — Second Judges Case; reversed the 1981 ruling and established that the CJI's recommendation, in consultation with two senior-most judges, was binding on the executive.
• In Re: Presidential Reference (1998) — Third Judges Case; expanded the Collegium to five members (CJI + four senior-most SC judges) for SC appointments, and three members (CJI + two senior-most SC judges) for HC appointments.

In 2014–15, Parliament passed the Ninety-Ninth Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 creating the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), a five-judge Constitution Bench struck down the NJAC, holding that it violated judicial independence — a basic structure component — and revived the Collegium system.

Current Developments

The September 23, 2026, Collegium resolution approved the following confirmations:

Andhra Pradesh High Court (5 Judges)

• Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
• Justice Thoota Chandra Dhana Sekar
• Justice Challa Gunaranjan
• Justice Avadhanam Hari Haranadha Sarma
• Justice Dr. Yadavalli Lakshmana Rao

Kerala High Court (5 Judges)

• Justice P. Krishna Kumar
• Justice K.V. Jayakumar
• Justice Muralee Krishna S.
• Justice Jobin Sebastian
• Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan

Uttarakhand High Court (1 Judge)

• Justice Subhash Upadhyay

Gauhati High Court (1 Judge)

• Justice Kaushik Goswami

These confirmations follow a period of intense deliberation on judicial vacancies across India's 25 High Courts, where — as of mid-2026 — nearly 40% of sanctioned strength remained vacant, according to the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice.

Key Facts

• India has 25 High Courts with a sanctioned strength of approximately 1,122 judges; as of 2026, working strength is around 671 judges.
• Additional Judges are appointed under Article 224 for a maximum term of two years; confirmation as Permanent Judges requires a fresh Collegium recommendation.
• The Supreme Court itself has a sanctioned strength of 34 judges (including the CJI) under the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2019.
• The Collegium's resolutions are uploaded on the Supreme Court website under its transparency policy adopted post-2017.
• The Supreme Court Collegium for HC appointments consists of 3 members: CJI + two senior-most SC judges.
• The executive must act within the timeframe suggested by the SC; in In Re: Filling of Vacancies in HCs (2021), the SC directed the Centre not to sit on Collegium recommendations for more than three months.

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 124(1) — Establishment and constitution of the Supreme Court.
• Article 124(2) — Appointment of SC judges by the President after consultation with judges of the SC and HCs as the President may deem necessary; CJI must always be consulted (except for CJI's own appointment).
• Article 217 — Appointment and conditions of office of a Judge of a High Court: "Every Judge of a High Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State…"
• Article 224 — Appointment of Additional and Acting Judges: President may appoint duly qualified persons as Additional Judges for a period not exceeding two years when a High Court has a temporary increase in its business or a backlog of work.
• Article 220 — Restriction on practice after being a permanent judge: After retirement/resignation from a HC, a judge cannot plead before any court except the SC or that HC itself.
• Article 235 — Control over subordinate courts vests in the High Court (matters of posting, promotion, leave of subordinate judicial officers).
• Article 50 (DPSP) — Separation of judiciary from the executive in public services.

Legal Framework

Beyond the Constitution, the following instruments govern judicial appointments:

• Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for appointment of judges to the SC and HCs — a non-statutory document evolved through executive-judiciary correspondence; its revision has been a subject of ongoing dispute since the NJAC judgment (2015).
• The High Courts (Alteration of Names) Act, 2021 — renamed the Bombay HC to Bombay High Court and the Calcutta HC to Calcutta High Court (official rectification).
• Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — protects judicial authority.
• In Re: Filling of Vacancies (2021 SC order) — directed the Centre to process Collegium recommendations within 3 months.

Institutional Framework

• Supreme Court Collegium — CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges for SC appointments; CJI + 2 senior-most SC judges for HC appointments.
• Ministry of Law and Justice — receives and transmits Collegium recommendations to the President; holds formal concurrence power in the MoP.
• Department of Justice (under MoLJ) — tracks vacancies, conducts IB verification of nominees, liaises with state governments.
• State Government — must be consulted for HC appointments; conveys its views to the Centre.
• National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms — policy body overseeing judicial efficiency targets, including vacancy reduction.

Economic Dimensions

Judicial vacancies directly impede economic activity: India has an estimated 5 crore pending cases across all courts (2026 data from the National Judicial Data Grid, NJDG). The World Bank's Doing Business reports have consistently identified contract enforcement timelines — averaging over 1,400 days in India — as a drag on investment. Filling judge vacancies in commercial benches is therefore linked to India's ambition to improve its ease-of-doing-business ranking. The Law Commission's 245th Report (2014) recommended increasing the judge-to-population ratio from 21 to 50 judges per million population.

Social Dimensions

Judicial vacancies fall disproportionately on litigants from marginalised communities, who lack resources to navigate prolonged delays. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice (2023) noted that over 63% of trial court undertrial prisoners — many belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Economically Weaker Sections — are awaiting judgments that are delayed by understaffed benches. The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, attempts to address this through free legal aid and Lok Adalats, but structural vacancies remain a bottleneck.

Challenges

• Opacity in Collegium recommendations: While resolutions are published online since 2017, the criteria for selection remain non-transparent; there is no statutory eligibility framework.
• Executive delay: The Centre has been criticised for sitting on Collegium recommendations — sometimes returning them after months with vague objections, or simply not acting.
• Diversity deficit: Women constitute less than 14% of High Court judges nationally; SC/ST and OBC representation is negligible.
• Cascading vacancies: High Court vacancies create a pipeline problem for the Supreme Court, since HC judges are the primary feeder for SC appointments.
• No permanent review mechanism: Unlike judicial service commissions in the UK, Australia, or South Africa, India has no independent permanent body with a transparent process.

Government Initiatives

• Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs): Centrally Sponsored Scheme to resolve POCSO and rape cases; relies on existing judge strength.
• e-Courts Mission Mode Project (Phase III): Aims at digital case management and hybrid hearings — reducing pendency without solely relying on more judges.
• National Mission for Justice Delivery: Sets annual targets for vacancy filling.
• IBC/NCLT benches: Separate quasi-judicial infrastructure for insolvency cases, reducing civil court burden.

Way Forward

• The Law Commission of India (230th Report, 2009; 245th Report, 2014) has called for increasing judge-to-population ratios and introducing a statutory base for the appointment process.
• The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice (2023) recommended a time-bound Memorandum of Procedure with statutory backing.
• NITI Aayog's National Performance Framework suggests setting quarterly vacancy-reduction targets as a KPI for the Ministry of Law and Justice.
• Expanding the use of Article 224A (appointment of retired HC judges in case of arrears) as a short-term measure to address pendency.
• Mandatory gender and diversity quotas for the Collegium's consideration shortlists — as recommended by former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud — to correct structural representation deficits.

Previous UPSC Questions

• UPSC Prelims 2019 (Q. 38): "What is/are the implication/implications of the judgment of the Supreme Court on the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014?" (Multiple options on Collegium restoration)
• UPSC Mains GS-II 2016: "Critically examine the Supreme Court's judgment on 'The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014' with reference to the appointment of judges of higher courts. Do you think it is an exercise of the 'Judicial Overreach'?"

Possible Mains Questions

1. "The Collegium system, though constitutionally validated, suffers from opacity, inadequate diversity, and executive-judiciary friction over appointments. Suggest a reform framework that preserves judicial independence while improving accountability and inclusiveness." (GS-II, 2026, 15 marks)
2. "A judiciary with 40% vacancies cannot deliver timely justice. Analyse how judicial pendency affects economic growth, social equity, and constitutional rights, and what structural reforms are needed." (GS-II, 2026, 10 marks)

Possible Prelims MCQs

1. Q. Under which Article of the Indian Constitution is the appointment of Additional High Court Judges governed?
   A. Article 217   B. Article 224   C. Article 124   D. Article 235
   Answer: B. Article 224 deals specifically with Additional and Acting Judges in HCs.
2. Q. Which among the following correctly describes the Supreme Court Collegium for recommending High Court appointments?
   A. CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges   B. CJI + 2 senior-most SC judges   C. CJI + Chief Justices of all HCs   D. CJI + 3 senior-most SC judges
   Answer: B. Per the Third Judges Case (1998), the HC Collegium = CJI + 2 senior-most SC judges.
3. Q. In which case did the Supreme Court strike down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)?
   A. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)   B. SCAORA v. Union of India (1993)   C. SCAORA v. Union of India (2015)   D. In re: Presidential Reference (1998)
   Answer: C. The NJAC was struck down by a five-judge bench in 2015.
4. Q. Under which Constitutional provision can a retired High Court Judge be temporarily appointed to help clear case backlogs?
   A. Article 217   B. Article 224   C. Article 224A   D. Article 226
   Answer: C. Article 224A allows the CJI of an HC (with consent of the President) to appoint a retired judge.
5. Q. The Law Commission of India's 245th Report (2014) recommended increasing the judge-to-population ratio to how many judges per million people?
   A. 20   B. 35   C. 50   D. 75
   Answer: C. The 245th Report recommended 50 judges per million population.

Essay Dimensions

1. "Judicial independence and accountability are not opposing values — they are two sides of the same coin of constitutional democracy."
2. "An overburdened judiciary is a silent denial of rights for the poor."
3. "The Collegium system has protected judicial independence but at the cost of transparency and diversity."
4. "India needs not just more judges, but better courts — technology, process, and culture are as important as numbers."
5. "Separation of powers in India: a doctrine strained by the executive-judiciary tension over appointments."

Interview Questions

1. Why does India still use the Collegium system despite its acknowledged shortcomings, and what would an ideal judicial appointment mechanism look like?
2. The Centre and the Collegium have been at odds over several HC appointments. How should this constitutional impasse be resolved?
3. With nearly 5 crore pending cases, is the judge-population ratio the right metric to fix? What else should be done?
4. Some argue that judicial diversity should be mandated through quotas. Do you agree? What are the constitutional implications?
5. How does the backlog in High Courts affect economic development and foreign investment in India?

FAQ

Q: What is the difference between an Additional Judge and a Permanent Judge of a High Court?

A: An Additional Judge is appointed under Article 224 for a maximum term of two years to meet a temporary workload increase; their appointment does not carry the same security of tenure as a Permanent Judge. A Permanent Judge, appointed under Article 217, holds office until age 62 (HC retirement age) unless they resign or are removed.

Q: Who is the current Chief Justice of India (CJI)?

A: As of September 2026, the Chief Justice of India is Justice Surya Kant (appointed September 2024), who heads the three-member Collegium for High Court appointments.

Q: How many High Courts does India have, and what is their combined sanctioned strength?

A: India has 25 High Courts with a combined sanctioned strength of approximately 1,122 judges. As of mid-2026, working strength stands at around 671, implying a vacancy rate of approximately 40%.

Q: What is the NJDG?

A: The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) is an online platform under the e-Courts Mission that provides real-time data on case filings, disposals, and pendency across all district courts, High Courts, and the Supreme Court.

Further Reading

• Supreme Court of India — Collegium Resolutions: www.sci.gov.in
• Department of Justice, MoLJ — Judicial Vacancies Data: doj.gov.in
• Law Commission of India — 245th Report (2014): lawcommissionofindia.nic.in
• National Judicial Data Grid: njdg.ecourts.gov.in