Acting Chief Justice and Judicial Appointments – The Question Before the Collegium

Acting Chief Justice Latest News

• A controversy involving the Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court has revived a recurring question before the Supreme Court Collegium: how to treat recommendations for the appointment of High Court judges sent by an Acting Chief Justice.

The Collegium System

• Judicial appointments to the higher judiciary in India are made through the Collegium system, evolved through a series of Supreme Court judgments rather than written into the Constitution.

‹ ›

The Convention on Acting Chief Justices

• An Acting Chief Justice is appointed when the post of Chief Justice of a High Court falls vacant and a permanent appointment has not yet been made. The senior-most available judge usually takes charge in this capacity.
• Conventionally, Acting Chief Justices do not make recommendations for judicial appointments. 
• The reasoning is straightforward: their tenures are typically short, and vetting candidates requires familiarity with the Bar, consultation with colleagues, and considered assessment that a brief stint may not permit.
• However, in exceptional cases where such names have been sent, the Collegium has adopted varied approaches rather than following a fixed rule.

News Summary

• The Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court has held the position since late September 2025, a tenure of almost a year. 
• The Supreme Court Collegium will now have to consider at least four names recommended by him.

Judicial Precedents

• The Bombay High Court Case (2020)
  • A judge served as Acting Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court from February 20 to March 19, 2020, and then as Chief Justice from March 20 until retirement on April 27, 2020. During this period, he prepared a list of 22 names for appointment as High Court judges.
  • Two consultee judges objected in writing, arguing that no Chief Justice could properly vet 22 candidates, each requiring consultation with the Bar, in so short a tenure. They urged that the list be sent back to the sitting Chief Justice.
  • A third consultee judge disagreed, noting that the recommending judge had served on the Bombay High Court since 2004 and knew the Bar well.
  • Relying on this affirmative response, the Collegium sent 18 of the 22 recommendations to the Centre. 
  • The Centre, however, returned the names, underlining the reservations recorded by the consultee judges. Fresh lists were subsequently drawn up by the High Court.
• The Rajasthan High Court Case (2022)
  • In another instance, the Centre raised objections to at least 12 names sent by the then Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, on the ground that the recommendations were made during the fag end of his tenure.
  • The Collegium asked whether there were specific objections against any name based on intelligence inputs, but received no response. The Centre subsequently cleared 8 of the 12 names.
  • Together, these cases show that the Collegium has treated such recommendations case by case, weighing the recommending judge’s familiarity with the High Court against the brevity of the tenure.

The Underlying Controversy

• The present question has arisen against the backdrop of a separate dispute.
• A Supreme Court judge, previously of the Rajasthan High Court, wrote three letters to the Chief Justice of India, seeking that the Acting Chief Justice be replaced by a Chief Justice from outside the state.
• The letters alleged manipulation of case listings, threats to fellow judges citing closeness to the CJI, and misuse of administrative powers. They also described the acting tenure as “unusually long.”
• The CJI responded that allegations against a sitting judge could not be adjudicated through the media and must go through institutional channels.

Why This Matters

• The question is narrow in form but touches on broader institutional concerns.
• Judicial vacancies remain a persistent problem across High Courts, and returning recommendations on procedural grounds can delay appointments further. 
• At the same time, appointments made without adequate vetting risk compromising the quality of the higher judiciary.
• The debate also highlights the problem of prolonged acting tenures. When an Acting Chief Justice remains in place for a year, questions inevitably arise about whether the arrangement has become a substitute for a permanent appointment rather than a stopgap.
• Finally, the absence of a written rule on this point illustrates a wider feature of the Collegium system, much of it rests on convention and precedent rather than codified procedure, which allows flexibility but also invites inconsistency.

Conclusion

• Whether an Acting Chief Justice can recommend names for judicial appointment has no settled answer, and past practice has varied with circumstance. 
• The Collegium’s approach in the present case will effectively set a precedent, either affirming that merit and familiarity with the Bar matter more than official designation, or reinforcing the convention that permanent appointments should precede such consequential recommendations. 
• Either way, this underlines the case for clearer, written norms within the appointments process.

Source: IE