Collegium Recommends 39 Judges

 Supreme Court Collegium Recommends 39 Judges for High Courts

• What happened?
  The Supreme Court Collegium, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, recommended 39 new judges for nine High Courts (Delhi, Telangana, MP, Rajasthan, Punjab & Haryana, Andhra Pradesh, Patna, Gauhati, Allahabad) on July 1–2, 2025.

• Why now?
  India’s High Courts are facing a severe shortage of judges—371 vacancies out of 1,122 sanctioned posts. Over 63 lakh cases are pending, of which 20 lakh are criminal appeals.

• Crisis Response:
  In January 2025, the Supreme Court allowed appointment of ad hoc retired judges under Article 224A to reduce backlogs.

• Centre vs Judiciary Tension:
  The Union government has been slow in clearing recommendations—often taking 9–10 months without explanation.
  Example: The Saurabh Kirpal case (pending for years), allegedly due to bias (he is openly gay).
  Tensions partly arise from the 2015 NJAC verdict, where the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC law, keeping judicial appointments in judicial hands.

• Transparency Concerns:
  In response to criticism, especially after a recent scandal (burnt currency at a judge's home), the Supreme Court released a detailed note on how judges are appointed, explaining the roles of:

  • High Court Collegiums

  • State and Union governments

  • Supreme Court Collegium

---

 Critical Analysis:

• What this shows:
  India's judicial system is under strain from both internal inefficiencies and executive-legislative friction.

• Why it matters:
  When judicial posts remain vacant, justice is delayed, which affects ordinary citizens the most.
  Backlog = denial of justice. One judge for nearly 19 lakh people is unsustainable.

• Key tension:
  There’s a power struggle between the executive (government) and the judiciary over who should control appointments. The government's delay tactics and the judiciary’s opacity both draw criticism.

• What’s needed:

• Speedier, accountable appointments

• Mutual respect between institutions

• A possible revisit of judicial reforms, maybe a better version of NJAC with safeguards for independence and transparency

• 1. Article 224A of the Constitution

  • What it says:
    Allows the Chief Justice of a High Court to request a retired judge to serve again as an ad hoc judge (temporary judge) in that High Court.

  • Why it matters:
    Helps in clearing case backlogs when there are not enough sitting judges.
    Used in January 2025 to reduce pendency in High Courts.

  ---

  2. Supreme Court Collegium

  • What it is:
    A group of senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice of India (CJI).

  • What it does:
    Selects and recommends names for appointment and transfer of judges in High Courts and the Supreme Court.

  • Current system:
    Operates without government interference but faces criticism for being non-transparent and closed to public scrutiny.

  ---

  3. High Court Collegium

  • What it is:
    A group made up of the Chief Justice of a High Court and the two senior-most judges of that High Court.

  • What it does:
    Recommends names for appointment of High Court judges, which then go to the Supreme Court Collegium.

  ---

  4. National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)

  • What it was:
    A law passed in 2014 to replace the Collegium system and give the government more say in the appointment of judges.

  • Who would be in NJAC:

    • Chief Justice of India

    • 2 senior-most Supreme Court judges

    • Union Law Minister

    • 2 “eminent persons” chosen by the PM, CJI, and Leader of Opposition

  • What happened to it:
    In October 2015, the Supreme Court struck it down saying it affected the independence of the judiciary.

  ---

  5. Judicial Backlog / Pendency

  • Meaning:
    The total number of pending court cases that are yet to be resolved.

  • Why it matters:
    Affects access to justice. In India, over 63 lakh cases are pending in High Courts alone.

  ---

  6. Ad Hoc Judges

  • Who they are:
    Retired judges who are temporarily appointed to courts to help reduce workload and deliver judgments faster.

  • Appointed under:
    Article 224A of the Constitution.