Vacancies the Collegium Could Foresee
Madhya Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh require a slightly different assessment. Their vacancies, like those in Bombay and Punjab and Haryana, did not arise from scheduled retirements. They arose because the incumbent Chief Justices were elevated to the Supreme Court on June 2. This may explain why the appointments could not be completed one month before the vacancies arose. It does not make the vacancies entirely unforeseen. The recommendations for elevation to the Supreme Court had been made by the Collegium itself. It therefore knew that their acceptance would create vacancies in four High Courts.
Although the Collegium could not determine when the Centre would notify the elevations, it could have commenced the process of identifying successors or prepared contingent recommendations. Instead, regular successors for Madhya Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh were recommended only on August 31, nearly three months after the vacancies arose.
2. The Second Question: Silence and Speculation
The second, and perhaps more important, question concerns transparency. The SCC’s comfortable silence has, in the past, led to uncomfortable questions, leaving gaps to be filled by speculation and rumour. Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s dissent against the recommendation to elevate Justice Vipul M. Pancholi is one such example. The dissent was not published by the Collegium, despite Justice Nagarathna reportedly seeking its publication. Its existence and contents became known only through media reports. Information of obvious great significance thus entered the public domain through a leak rather than any formal disclosure by the Collegium.
A similar opacity attended the transfers of Justices Arun Monga and Tara Vitasta Ganju from the Delhi High Court in October 2025. Justice Monga was transferred again merely 34 days after being brought from Rajasthan to Delhi, without any explanation from the Collegium. News portals reported that adverse material concerning the conduct of the judges had influenced the decision. Members of the Delhi Bar disputed that account, and one senior advocate described Justice Monga as a victim of “rumour mongering in the corridors of the court”. In the absence of any official account, neither version could be properly tested. Speculation was left to supply the explanation withheld by the Collegium.
Piecemeal Disclosure by the Collegium
The difficulty is not confined to cases where official silence gives rise to speculation. At times, the Collegium itself releases information in fragments. Justice Krushna Ram Mohapatra’s case is one such instance. At its meeting held on August 6, the Collegium decided both to transfer him from the Orissa High Court to Chhattisgarh and to recommend his appointment as Chief Justice of that High Court. The statement issued thereafter disclosed only the transfer. His proposed appointment as Chief Justice was disclosed through a separate statement on August 31, even though that decision had also been taken on August 6. Thus, two intrinsically connected decisions concerning the same judge were taken together but disclosed more than three weeks apart. The point is not the eventual outcome of Justice Mohapatra’s appointment. It is that the Collegium withheld one part of its decision for reasons that remain unknown. The practice of piecemeal disclosure inevitably raises concern as to whether other decisions may also have been taken but remain uncommunicated or outside the public domain.
Even in the case of Justice Sreedharan, the SCC has allowed speculation to spill in by only partly disclosing the reason for alteration.
Advance Succession Is Possible
Justice Lisa Gill’s appointment as Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court shows that advance succession planning is possible. The Collegium selected her on February 26 for a vacancy arising on April 25 and recommended her transfer approximately two months in advance. The Centre notified the transfer on March 6, enabling her to join the Andhra Pradesh High Court before the vacancy arose and avoiding an acting arrangement. Her appointment as Chief Justice was, however, notified only on April 22. The transition ensured continuity and came closer to the MoP, with the remaining delay attributable to the Centre.
The Only Consistency Is Inconsistency
Similar instances have happened in the past as well. Justice Karol had served as the Acting Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court for over a year with the SCC delaying recommendation of Justice Surya Kant by 260 days and the centre delaying the appointment by 266 days. After elevation of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma to the Supreme Court, the acting charge of Delhi was given to Justice Manmohan for 325 days. Whereafter, he was appointed as Chief Justice of his parent High Court in complete departure of the MoP.
Appointments and transfers of judges carry great constitutional consequences under Articles 217 and 222. The MoP cannot be a discipline which the SCC enforces against the Centre but treats as optional in its own functioning. The SCC has, on several occasions, criticised the Centre for delaying recommendations or departing from the prescribed procedure. It must subject itself to the same standard.
Justice Sreedharan’s case raises the most uncomfortable question. The public record discloses that the Government sought reconsideration but says nothing about why the SCC accepted it. The change affected his seniority, membership of the High Court Collegium and prospective Chief Justiceship. If judicial primacy is the basis of the Collegium system, its exercise must be visible at least through broad reasons. Otherwise, it appears that the executive can seek transfer of judges to places of its choice.
The vacancies have been filled, but the uncomfortable questions concerning transparency and adherence to the MoP are still alive. The Collegium is judicially evolved, while the MoP is an arrangement between the Judiciary and the Executive to secure judicial independence. The Collegium’s legitimacy rests upon public confidence in the manner in which it exercises its authority. It must therefore act, and account for its actions, in sunlight. Until the SCC and the Centre both follow the MoP and explain departures from it, the only consistency in the process will remain its inconsistency.
