Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Sunita Agarwal as Judge

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Second Woman Judge in 2026

Why in News?

• The Supreme Court Collegium, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, has recommended Gujarat High Court Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court. 
• This is the second recommendation of a woman for the Supreme Court in 2026. 
• In May 2026, senior advocate V. Mohana was directly elevated from the Bar to the Supreme Court. 

Other Recommendations

• The Collegium has recommended three High Court Chief Justices: 
  • Justice Sunita Agarwal — Gujarat High Court 
  • Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya — Delhi High Court 
  • Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh — Telangana High Court 
• The Supreme Court currently has four vacancies, while its sanctioned strength is 38 judges, including the CJI.

What is the Collegium System?

• The Collegium System is the mechanism for recommending the appointment and transfer of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. 
• It is not explicitly provided in the Constitution or a statute; it evolved through Supreme Court judgments. 
• Supreme Court Collegium: CJI along with four senior-most Supreme Court judges. 
• High Court Collegium: Chief Justice of the concerned High Court along with two senior-most judges. 
• The government can seek reconsideration or raise objections, but if the Collegium reiterates its recommendation, the government is required to accept it. 

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 124: Appointment of Supreme Court judges by the President; the CJI is consulted in appointments other than that of the CJI. 
• Article 217: Appointment of High Court judges by the President after consultation with the CJI, Governor and Chief Justice of the concerned High Court. 
• Article 222: Transfer of a High Court judge from one High Court to another after consultation with the CJI. 

Evolution — Three Judges Cases

• First Judges Case (1981) — S.P. Gupta v. Union of India: Executive had primacy; consultation did not mean concurrence. 
• Second Judges Case (1993) — Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India: Judicial primacy was established; CJI's opinion, formed collectively with senior judges, gained precedence. 
• Third Judges Case (1998) — In re Special Reference No. 1 of 1998: Clarified the Collegium as CJI along with four senior-most judges and emphasised consultation among multiple judges. 

Memorandum of Procedure (MoP)

• The MoP lays down the procedure for appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. 
• It was framed jointly through interaction between the executive and judiciary and formalised in 1999. 
• After the NJAC judgment in 2015, the Supreme Court directed revision of the MoP to improve transparency, accountability and efficiency. 
• The revised MoP has remained a matter of discussion between the government and judiciary. 

NJAC, 2014

• The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 and NJAC Act, 2014 sought to replace the Collegium System. 
• Proposed NJAC included: 
  • CJI 
  • Two senior-most Supreme Court judges 
  • Union Law Minister 
  • Two eminent persons 
• In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC framework, holding that it affected judicial independence. 

Major Concerns

• Lack of a detailed statutory framework. 
• Limited transparency in decision-making. 
• Absence of clearly codified selection criteria. 
• Concerns regarding accountability and representation. 
• Delays in appointments and resulting judicial vacancies. 
• Concerns about diversity, including representation of women.

Possible Reforms

• Make the MoP clearer and more transparent. 
• Establish objective and publicly understandable selection criteria. 
• Maintain written records of Collegium deliberations and reasons. 
• Improve representation and diversity in judicial appointments. 
• Consider suitable candidates from the Bar and distinguished jurists, as contemplated under Article 124(3). 
• Strengthen the balance between judicial independence and institutional accountability.

Practice Question 

Q. With reference to the Collegium System for judicial appointments in India, consider the following statements:

1. The Collegium System is expressly established by the Constitution and derives its authority directly from Article 124. 
2. The Second Judges Case established judicial primacy in appointments, while the Third Judges Case clarified the composition of the Supreme Court Collegium. 
3. The Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) is a constitutional provision that independently creates the Collegium System. 
4. The 99th Constitutional Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 sought to replace the Collegium System, but the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC framework in 2015. 

Which of the statements given above are correct?

(a) 1 and 3 only
(b) 2 and 4 only
(c) 1, 2 and 4 only
(d) 2, 3 and 4 only

Answer: (b) 2 and 4 only

Explanation:

• The Collegium System is not expressly provided for in the Constitution or in a statute; it evolved through a series of Supreme Court judgments known as the Three Judges Cases. Hence, Statement 1 is Incorrect. 
• The Second Judges Case (1993) established the principle of judicial primacy in judicial appointments, while the Third Judges Case (1998) clarified the composition of the Supreme Court Collegium as the CJI and four senior-most judges. Hence, Statement 2 is Correct. 
• The Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) lays down the procedure for judicial appointments but does not independently create the Collegium System. The Collegium evolved through judicial decisions. Hence, Statement 3 is Incorrect. 
• The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 and the NJAC Act, 2014 sought to replace the Collegium System. The Supreme Court struck down the NJAC framework in 2015, restoring the Collegium System. Hence, Statement 4 is Correct.