Before Supreme Court Collegium: Can Acting Chief Justices of HCs send names for judge appointments?
Source Entity
Apurva Vishwanath
The Supreme Court Collegium is currently debating the legitimacy of judicial appointment recommendations made by Acting Chief Justices. This follows controversy surrounding Rajasthan High Court's Acting CJ, Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, as the Collegium reviews his recent proposals.
The Constitutional Dilemma of Acting Chief Justices
The recent controversy surrounding the Rajasthan High Court’s Acting Chief Justice, Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, has thrust a long-standing procedural ambiguity into the national spotlight. With Justice Sharma having served in an acting capacity since September 2025, his recent recommendations for High Court judge appointments have forced the Supreme Court Collegium to confront an uncomfortable question: do the powers of an Acting Chief Justice extend to the nomination of permanent judicial appointees? This situation highlights the inherent tension between the need for administrative continuity in the judiciary and the procedural rigor required for life-tenure appointments.
The Collegium's Deliberative Process
The Supreme Court Collegium, currently led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and including Justices Vikram Nath, BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, and PS Narasimha, is now tasked with evaluating at least four names forwarded by Justice Sharma. The core issue is whether recommendations made by a judge who does not hold the permanent Chief Justice title carry the same weight and legitimacy as those from a confirmed head of a High Court. The Collegium must navigate this without compromising the integrity of the selection process while ensuring that the administrative functioning of the Rajasthan High Court remains uninterrupted.
Administrative Continuity vs. Procedural Propriety
One prevailing school of thought within the Collegium suggests that recommendations should not be summarily rejected or returned simply based on the nomenclature of the sender's office. This pragmatic view argues that if the vacancy is critical and the Acting CJ has fulfilled the necessary consultative requirements, the merit of the candidate should take precedence over the status of the recommending authority. However, this raises broader questions about the duration for which an 'Acting' position should be permitted to persist, as prolonged acting tenures can dilute the authority of the office.
Historical Context and Legal Precedent
Historically, the appointment of High Court judges is a highly sensitive process governed by a Memorandum of Procedure (MoP). The MoP is designed to ensure that the judiciary remains independent of executive influence, yet the role of the Acting CJ is not explicitly detailed in every contingency. By forcing this discussion to the forefront, the current situation in Rajasthan serves as a case study for the judiciary to potentially codify rules regarding how long a person can serve in an acting capacity and what specific powers they can exercise during that tenure.
Future Implications for Judicial Appointments
As the Collegium continues its deliberations, the outcome will likely set a precedent for all High Courts across India. If the Collegium chooses to accept these recommendations, it effectively validates the authority of Acting CJs to shape the future composition of their respective benches. Conversely, if they establish a policy of returning such names, it may pressure the executive and the judiciary to expedite the confirmation of permanent Chief Justices to avoid administrative paralysis. This decision will undoubtedly influence how judicial vacancies are managed in the years to come, balancing the need for speed against the necessity of institutional stability.