E-Paper
Govt repeats high court nomination twice rejected
The Supreme Court collegium is baffled as the government repeatedly returns a judicial officer's name for elevation despite negative IB feedback.
The Supreme Court collegium was left surprised last week after the Union government sent back, for the third time in two years, the name of a judicial officer for elevation to the Delhi high court, despite the fact that the collegium had already rejected the proposal twice on the basis of adverse inputs from the Intelligence Bureau (IB).
The name, which was first considered in 2023, was returned to the Delhi high court by the collegium following negative feedback from IB regarding the candidate’s suitability for elevation. According to people familiar with the matter, there was no change in the IB’s stance when the name was sent for reconsideration last year and again this year, and yet, the government chose to forward it once more.
The move, which came up at the collegium’s July 2 meeting, baffled members who saw little justification in the reiteration, particularly when the inputs from the intelligence agency remained unchanged. The collegium rejected the name yet again.
Apart from Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice BR Gavai, the collegium comprised justices Surya Kant and Vikram Nath.
This development comes amid growing tensions over the Centre’s selective action on judicial appointments and the inordinate delay in clearing several names recommended by the collegium over the past two months. Despite having acted swiftly to notify the appointment of three new Supreme Court judges in May, the government has since shown no urgency in processing a raft of other critical recommendations, including appointments and transfers at the level of high courts.
On May 26, in his first collegium meeting as CJI, Justice BR Gavai led a major overhaul of judicial positions across the country. The collegium, comprising justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, JK Maheshwari and BV Nagarathna along with the CJI, recommended the elevation of justices NV Anjaria, Vijay Bishnoi, and AS Chandurkar to the Supreme Court. Their appointments were notified just four days later on May 30, allowing the apex court to function at its full sanctioned strength of 34 judges.
However, other key proposals from the same meeting remain pending. These include the elevation of five judges as chief justices of high courts — justice Sanjeev Sachdeva (Rajasthan), justice Vibhu Bakhru (Karnataka), justice Ashutosh Kumar (Gauhati), justice Vipul M Pancholi (Patna), and justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan (Jharkhand), and the transfer of 22 judges across high courts to address administrative requirements and personal requests. The Delhi high court, in particular, was due to receive six new judges as part of this reshuffle, a move seen as part of the broader push to enhance transparency and capacity.
Furthermore, the government needs to act upon additional 36 recommendations made just this week. On July 3, the collegium cleared a record number of names for appointment as judges across various high courts, following a marathon round of personal interviews with 54 candidates over two days. The elevations span high courts in Delhi, Punjab and Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Patna, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, and others. As of July 1, there were 371 vacancies against the sanctioned strength of 1,122 judges across 25 high courts.
As Hindustan Times first reported on June 19, Justice Gavai has conveyed to the government that collegium recommendations, whether for appointment or transfer, must be acted upon in their entirety, without picking and choosing.
The government’s inaction has not only stalled progress but also caused considerable unease among recommended candidates. In the past few weeks, two senior advocates, Rajesh Sudhakar Datar and Shwetasree Majumdar, have formally withdrawn their consent for elevation to the high courts, citing frustration and a loss of professional dignity.
Datar, a senior civil and commercial lawyer in Mumbai, was recommended for the Bombay high court in September 2024. While three others from the same batch, including those juniors to him in terms of experience and years of practise, were elevated, his file remained untouched for over nine months. “It has been nine months. There has been no word, no explanation. So, I decided to withdraw. It is for the sake of my own self-respect, and for the respect of the entire bar,” Datar told HT on July 6. His decision came on July 5, a day after two of his batchmates took oath.
Similarly, Majumdar, an intellectual property law expert, withdrew earlier this month after waiting almost a year with no official communication. Though she had even undergone the mandatory medical examination, her appointment was held back without any explanation, unlike her contemporaries Tejas Karia, Ajay Digpaul and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, whose names were cleared earlier this year.
Currently, at least 27 advocates, including four women who were recommended between January 2023 and April 2025, still await any word from the government.
