An earlier appearance as Additional Solicitor General in the NJAC case has kept Supreme Court judge Justice PS Narasimha off a plea seeking the Memorandum Of Procedure for judges’ appointments, which the petition says has stayed unfinalised for nearly 11 years.
New Delhi: A petition asking for the revised Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) on appointments of judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts to be finalised will not be heard by Justice PS Narasimha. The Supreme Court judge recused himself on Monday, November 2, 2026, from the Article 32 petition, which says the exercise has been pending for nearly 11 years, ever since the 2015 judgment striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) [Lok Prahari v. Union of India].
The matter stood listed before a bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe. At the outset, Justice Narasimha said he could not hear it, as he had appeared as Additional Solicitor General before the five-judge Constitution Bench in the NJAC matter. The petition will now go before a bench that does not include him.
What the Constitution Bench left open
The petition begins from the 2015 ruling. After striking down the NJAC, the Constitution Bench directed that the existing MoP could be supplemented and finalised by the Government of India in consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
According to the petition, that Bench had pointed to specific areas needing improvement: eligibility criteria for appointments, transparency in the selection process, a permanent secretariat, and a mechanism to deal with complaints against prospective judges. The petitioner says the revised MoP has still not been finalised, despite repeated correspondence between the Government and the Supreme Court.
Who filed, and what is sought
Lok Prahari has filed the plea through its General Secretary, S.N. Shukla, a retired IAS officer, and Advocate-on-Record Shashank Singh. It asks for the following:
- a direction to the Chief Justice of India and the Union Government to complete the revision and finalisation of the MoP within a specified time;
- consideration of measures to make judicial appointments more objective, transparent and accountable; and
- a direction that minutes of meetings of the Supreme Court and High Court Collegiums on the selection of judges be made accessible under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The petitioner’s concerns
The petition points to the absence of clearly defined and publicly available criteria for evaluating and selecting candidates for the constitutional courts. It also questions the lack of transparency in decision-making, in particular the absence of recorded reasons for preferring some candidates over others.
The petitioner contends that selection of judges must be governed by objective and verifiable standards consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution, while preserving judicial independence.
What the recusal means
Recusal is a judge’s own call. A judge who has earlier appeared as counsel in a closely connected case commonly steps aside to avoid any perception of bias. Justice Narasimha‘s decision does not touch the merits; it only means the petition must wait for a fresh bench before it is heard.
The questions it raises remain significant. The MoP is the working framework for how names are proposed, vetted and cleared for the higher judiciary under the Collegium system. Whether the Court will set a timeline for its finalisation, and whether Collegium minutes can be brought within the RTI Act, will bear directly on the transparency debate that has followed the NJAC judgment.
Case Title: Lok Prahari v. Union of India (Writ Petition under Article 32)
Bench: Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, Supreme Court of India (Justice Narasimha recused)
Date: November 2, 2026
For the Petitioner: Advocate-on-Record Shashank Singh