A fundamental question regarding judicial appointments has resurfaced before the Supreme Court Collegium: should recommendations for High Court judges made by an Acting Chief Justice be formally considered? The discussion has gained momentum following an extended tenure of an Acting Chief Justice in Rajasthan, prompting the top judicial body to examine the scope of authority held by temporary court heads.
The Collegium must now evaluate at least four names recommended by the Acting Chief Justice, who has held the post for nearly a year. Conventionally, Acting Chief Justices do not make recommendations for judicial appointments because their tenures are typically short and transitional. However, an unusually long term has placed this long-standing convention under fresh scrutiny.
Within the Collegium, opinions remain divided on how to proceed. One perspective suggests that recommendations sent by an Acting Chief Justice should not be discarded solely because of their temporary administrative title. Proponents of this view argue that candidates should be evaluated strictly on merit, particularly when the Acting Chief Justice has had a prolonged tenure and belongs to that specific parent High Court, giving them a deep understanding of the local bar.
Conversely, another faction within the judiciary cautions against this practice. Accepting recommendations from Acting Chief Justices could unintentionally normalize long-term temporary appointments, removing the institutional urgency to appoint permanent Chief Justices. Critics worry that bypassing established conventions might blur lines around institutional leadership and accountability.
This is not the first time the Collegium has grappled with this dilemma. Past precedents show varying approaches under exceptional circumstances. In 2020, an Acting Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court prepared a list of 22 judicial candidates during a brief one-month tenure before briefly becoming permanent. While the top Collegium initially forwarded most names, objections were raised by consultee judges questioning whether such a brief period allowed for proper vetting, leading to the names eventually being returned for fresh consideration.
Similarly, in 2022, objections arose over names submitted during the final days of a Chief Justice's tenure in Rajasthan. In that case, the Collegium sought concrete intelligence inputs rather than rejecting names purely on procedural timing, which ultimately led to the clearance of a majority of those candidates.
The current debate has also brought administrative challenges to the surface, as internal communications raised concerns over prolonged acting tenures and administrative functioning within the state judiciary. In response, institutional leadership emphasized that all complaints and procedural questions concerning sitting judges must be resolved strictly through official channels rather than public discourse.
As the Supreme Court Collegium reviews the pending list of nominees, the final decision is expected to establish a crucial benchmark for how judicial vacancies, temporary leadership tenures, and appointment powers are handled across High Courts nationwide.