Judicial Appointments Tracker: April - June 2026

This article tracks significant judicial appointments and recommendations in India during April-June 2026, focusing on the Madras, Chhattisgarh, and Kerala High Courts. It highlights the ongoing process where the Supreme Court Collegium recommends judges, and the Central government subsequently clears these appointments. The developments underscore the critical role of the Collegium system in maintaining judicial strength and the continuous interplay between the judiciary and the executive in India's constitutional framework for judicial selections.

The efficient functioning of India's judicial system hinges significantly on timely and appropriate judicial appointments. The period of April to June 2026 saw several crucial recommendations by the Supreme Court Collegium and subsequent clearances by the Central government for various High Courts across the country. These appointments are vital not only for filling existing vacancies and reducing case backlogs but also for upholding the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

This tracker provides an overview of the key judicial appointments and recommendations made during this quarter, specifically focusing on the Madras, Chhattisgarh, and Kerala High Courts. The process, governed by a unique 'Collegium system,' involves a delicate balance of power between the judiciary and the executive, often leading to discussions about transparency and accountability. Understanding these developments is crucial for legal practitioners to gauge the evolving landscape of judicial administration and its potential impact on legal practice.

The article will delve into the constitutional underpinnings of judicial appointments in India, trace the evolution of the Collegium system, analyze the recent appointments within this framework, and conclude with implications for legal professionals and future outlooks.

The appointment of judges to the higher judiciary in India is primarily governed by Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution of India. Article 124(2) stipulates 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 may deem necessary, with consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) being mandatory for appointments other than the CJI. Similarly, Article 217(1) provides for the appointment of High Court Judges by the President after consultation with the CJI, the Governor of the concerned State, and, in the case of a judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of that High Court.

While the Constitution uses the term 'consultation,' its interpretation has evolved significantly through a series of landmark Supreme Court judgments, collectively known as the 'Three Judges Cases.' In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), also known as the First Judges Case, the Supreme Court held that 'consultation' did not mean 'concurrence,' thereby giving primacy to the executive in judicial appointments. However, this position was overturned in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993), the Second Judges Case, which established the Collegium system, asserting that 'consultation' effectively meant 'concurrence,' thus giving primacy to the judiciary. The Collegium for Supreme Court appointments comprises the CJI and four senior-most judges, while for High Courts, it consists of the Chief Justice of the High Court and two senior-most judges. The Third Judges Case, In re Special Reference No. 1 of 1998, further clarified and reinforced the Collegium's role and composition.

An attempt to replace the Collegium system with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) through the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, and the NJAC Act, 2014, was struck down by the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Another v. Union of India (2015), often referred to as the Fourth Judges Case. The Court held that the NJAC undermined the independence of the judiciary, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, thereby reviving the Collegium system. The Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) guides the Collegium system, outlining the guidelines for appointments and transfers, though its finalisation has been a subject of ongoing discussion.

The judicial appointments during April-June 2026, as highlighted in the provided excerpt, exemplify the operational dynamics of the Collegium system. On April 10, the Central government cleared the recommendations of the Supreme Court Collegium to appoint three additional judges of the Madras High Court—Justice R Poornima, Justice M Jothiraman, and Justice Augustine Devadoss Maria Clete— as permanent judges. This conversion from additional to permanent judge status is a routine yet significant step, ensuring stability and full judicial capacity. Similarly, five additional judges of the Chhattisgarh High Court—Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad—were also cleared for permanent appointments on the same date.

These clearances demonstrate the executive's role in formally notifying appointments after the Collegium's recommendations. While the Collegium holds primacy in initiating and deciding on names, the Central government's approval is the final step in the appointment process. The process for High Court judges involves the Chief Justice of the High Court consulting with senior judges, forwarding names to the Chief Minister, who then sends them to the Governor, and subsequently to the Union Minister of Law, Justice and Company Affairs. The Union Minister then forwards these names to the Supreme Court Collegium, which, after deliberation, sends its recommendations back to the Union Minister for presidential assent.

Further recommendations were made by the Supreme Court Collegium on April 14 for the Kerala High Court, proposing the appointment of advocate Preeta AK and Senior Advocate Liz Mathew as judges. This highlights the Collegium's continuous function in identifying suitable candidates from both the bar and the subordinate judiciary for elevation to High Courts. The distinction between advocates practicing before the High Court and those primarily at the Supreme Court, as noted for the Kerala High Court recommendations, underscores the diverse pool from which judicial talent is drawn. The timely processing of these recommendations and appointments is crucial for addressing the persistent issue of judicial vacancies, which often contributes to the backlog of cases across various High Courts.

The ongoing nature of these appointments, from recommendation to clearance, reflects the continuous effort to maintain judicial strength. However, the system is not without its critics, who often point to concerns regarding its opacity and the lack of a clear, codified procedure for selection, despite the existence of the Memorandum of Procedure. Debates persist about the need for greater transparency and accountability in the Collegium's functioning, even as its proponents argue for its necessity in safeguarding judicial independence from executive interference.

The judicial appointments and recommendations observed during April-June 2026 are integral to the sustained functioning and efficacy of the Indian judiciary. For legal practitioners, these appointments directly impact the composition of benches, potentially influencing judicial approaches and the speed of adjudication. A robust and fully staffed judiciary is essential for maintaining the rule of law and ensuring access to justice, directly affecting case management, hearing schedules, and the overall legal environment.

Looking ahead, the ongoing dialogue surrounding the Collegium system, particularly calls for enhanced transparency and a more streamlined Memorandum of Procedure, will remain a critical area to watch. While the Collegium system has been affirmed by the Supreme Court as vital for judicial independence, efforts to balance this independence with greater accountability and public confidence are likely to continue. Practitioners should stay abreast of these developments, as changes in the appointment process or the composition of the judiciary can have profound implications for legal strategy and the broader legal landscape in India.