Centre clears appointment of 5 new Supreme Court judges; here’s who they are

The Central government of India recently cleared the appointment of five new judges to the Supreme Court, bringing its working strength to 37 against a newly enhanced sanctioned strength of 38. This development follows an ordinance increasing the top court's capacity from 34 to 38 judges. The appointments, announced by Union Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal, underscore the ongoing efforts to address judicial vacancies and manage the burgeoning caseload. This article delves into the constitutional framework and the intricate Collegium system governing judicial appointments in India, examining its evolution, criticisms, and the implications of these latest additions to the apex court.

The Indian Supreme Court recently saw a significant development with the Central government clearing the appointment of five new judges, including four High Court Chief Justices and Senior Advocate V Mohana. This move, announced by Union Minister of State (in charge) of Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal, is particularly noteworthy as it raises the working strength of the Supreme Court to 37 judges, just one short of its newly increased sanctioned strength of 38. The increase in sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 was facilitated by a recent ordinance issued by the Centre, reflecting a proactive approach to bolster the judiciary's capacity.

These appointments are crucial for the efficient functioning of the apex court, which often grapples with a substantial backlog of cases. The process of appointing judges to the Supreme Court of India is a complex interplay between constitutional provisions, judicial pronouncements, and executive action, primarily governed by the Collegium system. This article will explore the legal and historical context of judicial appointments in India, analyze the functioning and challenges of the Collegium system, and discuss the broader implications of these recent appointments for the Indian legal landscape.

The foundation for the establishment and composition of the Supreme Court of India is laid out in Article 124 of the Constitution. Initially, Article 124(1) stipulated a Chief Justice of India and not more than seven other judges, granting Parliament the power to prescribe a larger number by law. This power has been exercised multiple times through the *Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956*, which has been amended periodically to increase the sanctioned strength. For instance, the strength was increased from 30 to 33 (excluding the Chief Justice) in 2019, making the total sanctioned strength 34. The recent ordinance further increased this to 38 (including the Chief Justice of India).

Article 124(2) mandates that every Supreme Court judge shall be appointed by the President after consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as the President deems necessary, with the Chief Justice of India always being consulted for appointments other than their own. The interpretation of the term "consultation" has been the subject of several landmark Supreme Court judgments, collectively known as the "Three Judges Cases." In *S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (First Judges Case, 1981)*, the Court held that "consultation" did not mean "concurrence," thereby granting primacy to the executive in judicial appointments. However, this position was overturned in *Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (Second Judges Case, 1993)*, which established the Collegium system, asserting the primacy of the Chief Justice of India's opinion, formed in consultation with two senior-most judges. The *Third Judges Case (In re Special Reference 1 of 1998)* further clarified and expanded the Collegium to include the Chief Justice and four senior-most Supreme Court judges, making their collective opinion binding on the government. This evolution led to the formulation of the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), an agreement between the judiciary and the government outlining the guidelines for judicial appointments.

The Collegium system, though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, has become the cornerstone of judicial appointments in India, a unique feature among constitutional democracies where the judiciary largely appoints its own members. While proponents argue that it safeguards judicial independence from political interference, the system has faced persistent criticism for its perceived lack of transparency and accountability. Concerns such as nepotism, often termed the "uncle judge syndrome," and the absence of clear, codified eligibility criteria have been raised.

The government's role in the appointment process, post-Collegium, is largely restricted. While the Law Ministry can raise objections and return recommendations for reconsideration, it is generally bound to notify appointments if the Collegium reiterates its choices. This dynamic has occasionally led to friction and delays in appointments, contributing to judicial vacancies. An attempt to reform this system came with the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, and the *National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014* (NJAC), which sought to replace the Collegium with a body comprising judicial and executive members. However, the Supreme Court, in *Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (Fourth Judges Case, 2015)*, struck down the NJAC, holding that it violated the basic structure of the Constitution by compromising judicial independence.

The recent increase in the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court to 38 and the subsequent appointment of five new judges are direct responses to the pressing issue of case pendency. A fully staffed court is better equipped to handle the substantial judicial workload, potentially leading to faster disposal of cases and reducing the burden on existing judges. However, the effectiveness of merely increasing numbers without addressing underlying procedural issues, such as the finalisation of a more transparent and accountable Memorandum of Procedure, remains a subject of ongoing debate among legal professionals and the Supreme Court Bar Association.

The recent appointments to the Supreme Court of India, bringing its strength closer to the newly sanctioned maximum, represent a crucial step towards strengthening the country's highest judicial institution. For practising attorneys, a more robustly staffed Supreme Court could translate into more efficient case management, potentially reducing delays in the adjudication of critical legal matters. This enhanced capacity is vital for upholding the rule of law and ensuring timely justice, especially given the complex and voluminous nature of cases reaching the apex court.

Looking ahead, the legal fraternity will keenly observe the impact of these appointments on the court's functioning and its ability to tackle the backlog. Furthermore, the ongoing discussions surrounding the finalisation of a comprehensive and transparent Memorandum of Procedure for judicial appointments remain a critical area of focus. Ensuring accountability and clarity in the appointment process, while preserving judicial independence, is paramount for maintaining public confidence in the judiciary and for the continued evolution of India's constitutional democracy.