Four Chief Justices in One Sitting: The Collegium Acts, and Rajasthan Is the Reason

🗞️ Why in News The Supreme Court Collegium notified recommendations for the Chief Justices of four High Courts following its meeting of August 31, 2026, reported on September 1. One of them is the Rajasthan High Court, where a sitting Supreme Court judge has written three letters to the Chief Justice of India alleging maladministration by the Acting Chief Justice.

The Recommendations, in One Table

The Chhattisgarh recommendation is the odd one out and worth noting for that reason. It belongs to an earlier round and is given here as background: it was made at a separate meeting on August 6, 2026, against the retirement of the incumbent Chief Justice on September 4, 2026. The other three come from the August 31 sitting, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.

Why Rajasthan Is the Reason This Round Happened When It Did

The Rajasthan High Court has not had a permanent Chief Justice. It has been headed by an Acting Chief Justice, Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, since September 2025.

Three letters. The correspondence that precedes this round is background to it rather than news of the day. Justice Sandeep Mehta of the Supreme Court, himself from the Rajasthan High Court, wrote to the Chief Justice of India on August 2, 10 and 17, 2026. The letters allege maladministration, malpractice, nepotism and favouritism by the Acting Chief Justice, including the manipulation of case listings to favour particular litigants and irregularities in rostering. A complaint referred to in the correspondence concerns permanent Lok Adalat appointments at Jaipur and Ajmer said to have gone to persons close to the Acting Chief Justice.

The specific relief sought was the appointment, with immediate effect, of a Chief Justice from another State to head the Rajasthan High Court.

The Chief Justice of India’s public position, stated on August 26 after the letters reached the media and given here as background, was that allegations against a sitting judge must be dealt with strictly through the established institutional mechanism, that no conclusion can be reached without giving Justice Sharma an opportunity of hearing, and that “the Supreme Court cannot allow individual complaints concerning judges to be determined through competing claims in the media”. He added that the Collegium was working towards appointing regular Chief Justices in High Courts. The August 31 recommendations are the visible result.

The immediate backdrop in Jaipur and Jodhpur. The Rajasthan High Court bar resolved to abstain from work until September 6, demanding a permanent Chief Justice, and the Acting Chief Justice has taken leave, holding no sitting from September 1 to 5 according to the Jaipur bench roster.

Handle this as an allegation, because that is what it is. Three letters from a Supreme Court judge are a serious institutional event and can be described as such. The contents are unproven allegations against a named judge. In an answer, write that a complaint of maladministration was made and that the Collegium subsequently recommended a permanent Chief Justice from outside the State. Do not write that the allegations were established. Nothing in the public record says they were.

Why an Acting Chief Justice was going to stay. In the absence of a Collegium recommendation for a permanent Chief Justice, Justice Sharma would have continued in charge until his retirement on September 26, 2026, the day before his 62nd birthday. That is the practical fact that made the vacancy urgent rather than routine.

A procedural footnote worth knowing. The Collegium adopted an advance-transfer practice in February 2026 under which a judge in line to become a High Court Chief Justice is transferred to that court about two months before the post falls vacant, so that the incoming Chief Justice knows the court before taking charge. The Chhattisgarh recommendation of August 6, given here as background, came a month before the incumbent’s retirement and is that practice at work; the Rajasthan transfer-plus-elevation is the same instrument used to end an acting arrangement.

The Collegium: What It Is, and Where It Comes From

There is no mention of a collegium in the Constitution. Article 124(2) provides that a Supreme Court judge is appointed by the President after consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts as the President may deem necessary. Article 217(1) provides for the appointment of a High Court judge after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State, and, for a judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of that High Court.

The collegium is what the Supreme Court made of the word “consultation”. The doctrine was built across three cases:

The 99th Amendment and the NJAC. Parliament enacted the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 to replace the collegium. In 2015, in the Fourth Judges case, the Supreme Court struck both down as violating the basic structure, holding that judicial primacy in appointments is part of judicial independence.

The Memorandum of Procedure is the document that governs the mechanics. It has been the subject of unresolved correspondence between the government and the judiciary since 2015, which is why a question on it is fair game.

Chief Justice of a High Court: the specific rule

For the appointment of the Chief Justice of a High Court, the recommendation is made by the Chief Justice of India in consultation with the two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. There is a settled convention, followed here, that a Chief Justice is normally appointed from outside the High Court to which the appointment is made. Justice Agrawal moves from Chhattisgarh to Rajasthan; Justice Kogje from Gujarat to Madhya Pradesh; Justice Bhati out of Rajasthan to Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. All three follow the convention.

A recommendation is not an appointment. The Collegium recommends; the recommendation goes to the Union Government; the appointment is made by the President by warrant under hand and seal. The government may return a recommendation once for reconsideration. If the Collegium reiterates, the government is bound by convention to act on it, though delay in acting has itself been a recurring subject of litigation.

The Acting Chief Justice Question

Article 223 provides that when the office of Chief Justice of a High Court is vacant, or the Chief Justice is absent or unable to perform the duties, the President may appoint one of the other judges of that Court to act as Chief Justice.

The structural point worth carrying into an answer. An Acting Chief Justice exercises the full administrative powers of the office, including the roster, that is, the allocation of subjects and cases among benches, which is the single most consequential administrative power a High Court Chief Justice holds. But the Acting Chief Justice holds the post without the scrutiny of the appointment process that a permanent Chief Justice passes through, and without a fixed term. The Rajasthan episode is the argument for filling Chief Justice vacancies promptly stated in its sharpest form: a prolonged acting arrangement concentrates the roster power in an officer whom the collegium process has not vetted for that office.

UPSC Relevance

GS Paper 2. Structure, organisation and functioning of the judiciary; appointment to the higher judiciary; separation of powers; accountability mechanisms.

The Mains framing. This is a case study in the gap between independence and accountability in the higher judiciary. The collegium secured independence in appointments in 1993 and defended it in 2015. It has never developed a comparable internal mechanism for handling complaints about the administrative conduct of a Chief Justice. That is why a complaint of this kind travels by letter to the Chief Justice of India rather than through a defined procedure, and why the remedy available was a transfer and an appointment rather than an inquiry with a finding.

The way forward that scores is procedural, not partisan: publish the in-house procedure for complaints against High Court Chief Justices with timelines, fill Chief Justice vacancies before they arise rather than after, and finalise the long-pending Memorandum of Procedure so that criteria and timelines cease to be a matter of correspondence.

A Mains question worth preparing. “The collegium system secured judicial independence in appointments but left administrative accountability within the higher judiciary undeveloped. Examine with reference to recent events. (250 words)”

Prelims focus. The three Judges cases and what each held, the composition fixed in 1998, Articles 124, 217 and 223, the 99th Amendment and the 2015 NJAC judgment, and the rule that a High Court Chief Justice recommendation involves the CJI and the two senior-most judges.

📌 Facts Corner — Knowledgepedia

Prelims, statement-ready facts:

• Article 124(2): SC judges are appointed by the President after consulting such SC and HC judges as the President deems necessary.
• Article 217(1): an HC judge is appointed after consulting the CJI, the Governor and, for a puisne judge, that High Court’s Chief Justice.
• Article 223: when an HC Chief Justice’s office is vacant, the President may appoint another judge of that court to act as Chief Justice.
• First Judges case, S. P. Gupta, 1981: consultation does not mean concurrence; the executive had primacy.
• Second Judges case, SCAORA v Union of India, 1993: consultation means concurrence; the CJI’s collective view has primacy.
• Third Judges case, Special Reference 1 of 1998: CJI plus four senior-most judges for SC appointments, plus two for High Courts.
• 99th Constitutional Amendment and NJAC Act, both 2014, struck down in 2015 (Fourth Judges case) as violating the basic structure.
• A High Court Chief Justice is recommended by the CJI with the two senior-most SC judges, by convention from outside that High Court.
• Appointment is by the President by warrant under hand and seal; the government may return a recommendation once for reconsideration.
• August 31, 2026 round under CJI Surya Kant: Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Chhattisgarh HC) recommended as Rajasthan Chief Justice.
• Same round: Justice A. Y. Kogje (Gujarat HC) to Madhya Pradesh; Justice P. S. Bhati (Rajasthan HC) to Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.
• Chhattisgarh: Justice K. R. Mohapatra of the Orissa HC, recommended August 6, 2026; the incumbent retires September 4, 2026.
• Rajasthan HC has been under Acting Chief Justice S. P. Sharma since September 2025; he retires on September 26, 2026.
• Justice Sandeep Mehta of the Supreme Court wrote to the CJI on August 2, 10 and 17, 2026, alleging maladministration in Rajasthan.

Prelims, the traps:

• The word collegium appears nowhere in the Constitution; it is judge-made, built on the word “consultation”.
• A reiterated recommendation binds the government by convention, not by any Article; delay in acting is the live dispute.
• An Acting Chief Justice holds the full roster power but has not passed the appointment process for that office and has no fixed term.
• The allegations against Justice Sharma are unproven; write “a complaint was made and the Collegium acted”, never “established”.

Mains, arguments and keywords:

• Frame: independence in appointments was secured in 1993 and 2015; administrative accountability inside the judiciary was never built.
• Keywords: judicial primacy, basic structure, master of the roster, in-house procedure, Memorandum of Procedure, transfer as remedy.
• Way forward: publish the in-house procedure with timelines; fill CJ vacancies before they arise; finalise the MoP pending since 2015.
• Counter-view: the Collegium did act, within a month of the letters, using the instrument it has (transfer plus elevation).

Interview, be ready for:

• Probe: “Should judges appoint judges?” Give the 1993 and 2015 reasoning, then concede the accountability gap this episode exposes.
• Probe: “Is a bar strike a legitimate way to demand a Chief Justice?” Weigh litigants’ access to justice against the grievance.

Sources: SCC Online, LiveLaw (CJI’s response), LiveLaw (ACJ on leave), Bar and Bench

Source: Four Chief Justices in One Sitting: The Collegium Acts, and Rajasthan Is the Reason — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Current Affairs