The Union government sent back the name of a Judicial Officer for the HC Judgeship even after being rejected twice by the Supreme Court Collegium and IB.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court collegium was left puzzled last week after the Union government, for the third time in two years, returned the name of a judicial officer recommended for elevation to the Delhi High Court, despite the collegium having already rejected the proposal twice based on adverse Intelligence Bureau (IB) inputs.
The candidate’s name, initially considered in 2023, had been sent back by the collegium to the Delhi High Court following negative feedback from the IB concerning the officer’s suitability. Sources familiar with the matter confirmed that the IB’s assessment remained unchanged when the name was reconsidered both in 2024 and again in 2025, yet the government persisted in resubmitting the recommendation.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Collegium Orders Major Reshuffle, Transfers 21 High Court Judges
This issue was raised at the collegium meeting held on July 2, leaving members baffled as they found no reasonable basis for the government’s insistence, particularly when the intelligence inputs had not been revised. Consequently, the collegium once again rejected the proposal.
The collegium, in this instance, comprised Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant and Vikram Nath. This episode has unfolded amid rising friction over the Centre’s selective response to judicial appointments and its delay in processing several names forwarded by the collegium over the past two months.
While the government acted swiftly to notify the elevation of three new Supreme Court judges in May, it has shown little urgency in clearing several other critical recommendations, especially those concerning appointments and transfers at the high court level.
On May 26, during his first collegium meeting as CJI, Justice Gavai initiated a crucial reshuffle of judicial positions nationwide. The collegium, then comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, JK Maheshwari, BV Nagarathna, and the CJI, recommended Justices NV Anjaria, Vijay Bishnoi, and AS Chandurkar for elevation to the Supreme Court.
Their appointments were promptly notified on May 30, restoring the apex court to its full sanctioned strength of 34 judges. However, other proposals from the same meeting remain pending. These include the appointment of five judges as Chief Justices of various high courts, Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva (Rajasthan), Vibhu Bakhru (Karnataka), Ashutosh Kumar (Gauhati), Vipul M Pancholi (Patna), and Tarlok Singh Chauhan (Jharkhand), along with the transfer of 22 high court judges to meet administrative needs and accommodate personal requests.
The Delhi High Court was also expected to receive six new judges as part of this reshuffle, aimed at boosting efficiency and transparency.
In addition, the government is yet to act on 36 fresh recommendations made just last week. On July 3, the collegium cleared a record number of names for elevation to various high courts, following extensive interviews with 54 candidates over two days. These appointments span multiple high courts, including those in Delhi, Punjab and Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Patna, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan.
As of July 1, 2025, there were 371 vacancies out of a total sanctioned strength of 1,122 judges across the 25 high courts in the country.
Justice Gavai has firmly conveyed to the government that all collegium recommendations, whether for appointments or transfers, must be acted upon in their entirety, and not selectively.
The government’s continued inaction has consequently hindered progress and caused growing anxiety among those recommended for elevation. In recent weeks, two senior advocates, Rajesh Sudhakar Datar and Shwetasree Majumdar, have formally withdrawn their consent to be appointed as judges, citing prolonged silence and erosion of professional dignity.
Datar, a senior civil and commercial lawyer in Mumbai, had been recommended for the Bombay High Court in September 2024. Despite three others from the same list, including juniors in terms of experience and practice, being elevated, his file saw no movement for over nine months.
Expressing disappointment, Datar stated on July 6 that the prolonged delay and lack of communication compelled him to step back to preserve his self-respect and that of the legal community. His decision came a day after two of his batchmates took their oaths.
Similarly, Majumdar, a noted intellectual property law expert, withdrew earlier this month after nearly a year of waiting without any official update, even though she had completed all formal procedures, including a mandatory medical examination. In contrast, her peers, Tejas Karia, Ajay Digpaul, and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, had already been appointed earlier this year.
At present, at least 27 advocates, including four women, who were recommended between January 2023 and April 2025, continue to await any communication from the government regarding their elevation, further underscoring the deepening concerns over the judicial appointment process.
Click Here to Read More Reports on Collegium
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Intelligence Bureau
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
