The updated resolution affects the Chief Justices of the Meghalaya, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Courts.
NEW DELHI: On Tuesday(17th Sept), the Supreme Court Collegium, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, issued a fresh resolution altering its previous recommendations regarding the appointment of High Court Chief Justices.
The updated resolution affects the Chief Justices of the Meghalaya, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Courts.
The revised recommendations are as follows:
- Justice Indra Prasanna Mukerji for the Meghalaya High Court
- Justice Suresh Kumar Kait for the Madhya Pradesh High Court
- Justice GS Sandhawalia for the Himachal Pradesh High Court
- Justice Tashi Rabstan for the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
This new resolution supersedes the recommendations made on July 11.
Previously, Justice Kait was recommended for the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Courts, Justice Sandhawalia for Madhya Pradesh, and Justice Rabstan for Meghalaya. With the new adjustments, Justice Mukerji joins the list as the recommended CJ for Meghalaya.
One judge from the previous list, Justice Rajiv Shakdher, has been dropped. The July 11 resolution had recommended Justice Shakdher for the position of CJ of Himachal Pradesh.
Justice Rajiv Shakdher, initially recommended as Chief Justice (CJ) of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, has been reconsidered due to his upcoming retirement on October 18, 2024.
The Supreme Court Collegium, in its new resolution, recommends Justice GS Sandhawalia for the post following Justice Shakdher’s retirement, superseding the July 11 recommendation.
The new resolution, addressing the delay in the government’s action on the earlier recommendations, also outlines the following changes to Chief Justice appointments:
- Justice Suresh Kumar Kait – Now recommended as CJ of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, instead of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. Justice Kait, appointed in 2008, is ranked fifth in seniority among High Court judges, including CJs, and is due to retire on May 23, 2025. He is also from the Scheduled Caste category and senior to the senior-most judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva.
- Justice GS Sandhawalia – Initially recommended as CJ of Madhya Pradesh, is now proposed as CJ of Himachal Pradesh following Justice Shakdher’s retirement on October 18, 2024.
- Justice Tashi Rabstan – Originally recommended for Meghalaya, is now suggested as CJ of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, where he is currently the seniormost puisne judge. Appointed in 2013, he will retire on April 9, 2025. His appointment would mark the first CJ from Ladakh, bringing diversity to the High Courts as he belongs to the Bot Scheduled Tribe and follows Buddhism.
- Justice Indra Prasanna Mukerji – A new entrant, Justice Mukerji is now recommended as CJ of the Meghalaya High Court. Appointed as a judge in May 2009, he ranks seventh in seniority among High Court judges, including CJs, and is due to retire on September 5, 2025.
The Collegium’s July 11 resolution had earlier proposed the following appointments:
- Justice Manmohan for CJ of the Delhi High Court
- Justice Rajiv Shakdher for CJ of Himachal Pradesh
- Justice Suresh Kumar Kait for Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh
- Justice GS Sandhawalia for Madhya Pradesh
- Justice Nitin Madhukar Jamdar for Kerala
- Justice Tashi Rabstan for Meghalaya
- Justice KR Shriram for Madras
With the revised resolution, the Collegium has adjusted several of these appointments.
Appointment Process
The appointment of judges to the higher judiciary follows a multi-step procedure. The Supreme Court Collegium proposes candidates to the Central Government, which can either approve these recommendations or return them for reconsideration. The Collegium bases its choices on criteria such as seniority, merit, and the integrity of the judges.
Role of Central Gov.
The Central Government holds an essential role in this process. It conducts background checks on the nominated judges and may raise objections or request clarifications from the Collegium. However, the final authority lies with the Collegium if it reiterates its recommendations, the government is obligated to accept them.
