"Punjab Government's Refusal to Consent Disrupts High Court Chief Justice Appointment"
Collegium System
The body of senior Supreme Court judges that makes binding recommendations for judicial appointments.
Memorandum of Procedure (MoP)
The administrative document governing how collegium recommendations are processed by the executive.
The appointment of judges to High Courts and the Supreme Court has always sat at the intersection of judicial independence and executive authority. Article 217 of the Constitution provides that a High Court judge shall be appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the state, and the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned. The word "consultation" was initially interpreted to mean that the executive retained the final say. This changed fundamentally through a series of Supreme Court judgments known as the Judges Cases.
In the Second Judges Case (1993), the Supreme Court held that "consultation" effectively means "concurrence", the President is bound by the collegium's recommendation. The Third Judges Case (1998) further clarified that the collegium, comprising the Chief Justice of India and the four most senior judges of the Supreme Court, collectively makes binding recommendations. This shift transferred the decisive authority over judicial appointments from the executive to the judiciary itself. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), established by the 99th Constitutional Amendment (2014), sought to restore executive participation but was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 as violating the basic structure of the Constitution, specifically judicial independence.
The Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) is the administrative document that governs the process by which collegium recommendations are processed. For High Court appointments, the MoP requires the Centre to consult the concerned state government before notifying an appointment. This consultation is meant to surface legitimate administrative or security concerns, not to give the state a political veto. The MoP currently fixes no deadline for a state's response, creating an ambiguity that the Punjab episode has now brought into sharp focus. The broader doctrine of separation of powers, which the Supreme Court has recognised as part of the Constitution's basic structure, requires that the executive, legislature, and judiciary each operate within their designated domain, and that no branch uses procedural mechanisms to encroach on another's core function.
The collegium system operates in two stages for High Court appointments. First, the High Court collegium (the Chief Justice and two senior-most judges of that court) initiates a recommendation. This goes to the Supreme Court collegium, which examines it and, if it agrees, forwards the recommendation to the Union government. The Centre then consults the state government and the Intelligence Bureau before notifying the appointment in the official gazette.
The MoP's state-consultation requirement reflects the federal character of High Courts. High Courts serve states, and state governments may have relevant administrative information about a candidate. However, the consultation is advisory in nature. The state is not a co-appointing authority. If the state raises objections, those objections go on record and are considered by the collegium, which may or may not revise its recommendation. Crucially, if the collegium reiterates its recommendation after considering objections, the Centre is constitutionally bound to notify the appointment. …
The power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court of India is vested in
With reference to Indian judiciary, consider the following statements:
1.Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with prior permission of the President of India.
2.In India, any High Court has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Judicial Legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Indian Constitution. In this context justify the filing of large number of public interest petitions praying for issuing guidelines to executive authorities.
Consider the following pairs relating to landmark Supreme Court judgments on judicial appointments:
Judgment — Key Outcome
1.First Judges Case (1981) — Executive has primacy in judicial appointments
2.Second Judges Case (1993) — Collegium recommendations are binding on the executive
3.Third Judges Case (1998) — Collegium comprises CJI and four most senior SC judges
4.NJAC Case (2015) — 99th Constitutional Amendment upheld as constitutionally valid
How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?
With reference to the appointment of High Court judges in India, consider the following statements:
1.Article 217 of the Constitution requires the President to consult the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the state, and the Chief Justice of the High Court before making an appointment.
2.The Second Judges Case (1993) held that 'consultation' in the context of judicial appointments means 'concurrence', making collegium recommendations binding.
3.The Memorandum of Procedure currently prescribes a fixed deadline within which a state government must respond to a proposed High Court appointment.
4.The Supreme Court has directed that when the collegium reiterates a name, the Centre must notify the appointment within three to four weeks.
How many of the above statements are correct?
With reference to the power of the Supreme Court of India, consider the following statements:
1.Any retired judge of the Supreme Court can be called back to sit as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with prior permission of the President.
2.The power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court is vested in Parliament.
3.The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction under Article 131 covers disputes between the Government of India and one or more States.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Which of the following correctly describes the constitutional basis for the collegium system of judicial appointments in India?
1.It is explicitly provided for in Article 124 of the Constitution.
2.It emerged from judicial interpretation of the word 'consultation' in Articles 124 and 217.
3.It was codified by the 99th Constitutional Amendment, which was later struck down.
4.It was upheld as part of the basic structure of the Constitution in the NJAC judgment of 2015.
Select the correct answer using the codes given below:
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account