Collegium proposes 3 HC Chief Justices for elevation to SC

1. At a Glance

• On 28 September 2026 the Supreme Court Collegium, headed by CJI Surya Kant, recommended three High Court Chief Justices for appointment as Supreme Court judges: Justice Sunita Agarwal (Gujarat HC), Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya (Delhi HC) and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh (Telangana HC) [1]
• It is the second recommendation of a woman to the SC in 2026. The last year with several women appointed was 2021 [1]
• For UPSC, the topic tests how judges are appointed (Art. 124, the Collegium system, the Judges Cases, NJAC), gender diversity on the Bench, and judicial accountability (the Yashwant Varma episode) [1][2]

2. Why in the News

• 28 Sept 2026: the Collegium recommended three HC Chief Justices for elevation. Justice Sunita Agarwal was listed first in the batch [1]
• The sanctioned strength of the SC has been raised to 38 judges, including the CJI [1]
• May 2026: the Collegium recommended senior advocate V. Mohana for direct elevation from the Bar. She was appointed along with four other judges [1]
• Justice Upadhyaya (CJ, Delhi HC) conducted the preliminary enquiry into allegations against former Delhi HC judge Justice Yashwant Varma, after sacks of half-burnt currency were allegedly found at his residence [1]

3. Background & Evolution

• 1950: Under Art. 124(2) the President appoints SC judges "after consultation" with the CJI and other judges [2]
• 1981, First Judges Case (S.P. Gupta): "consultation" was held not to mean "concurrence". The executive had primacy [2]
• 1993, Second Judges Case (SC Advocates-on-Record Assn.): judicial primacy was established and the Collegium was born [2]
• 1998, Third Judges Case (Presidential Reference under Art. 143): the SC Collegium was expanded to the CJI + 4 senior-most judges [2]
• 2014: the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the NJAC Act replaced the Collegium [2]
• Oct 2015, Fourth Judges Case: the SC struck down the NJAC as violating judicial independence, which is part of the basic structure. The Collegium was restored and the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) was to be revised [2]
• 2021: Justices Hima Kohli, B.V. Nagarathna and Bela M. Trivedi were recommended and appointed together [1]
• 2026: V. Mohana was elevated directly from the Bar (May). Three HC Chief Justices were recommended (Sept). The SC's strength now stands at 38 [1]

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• The Collegium has no textual basis in the Constitution. It is a judge-made mechanism from the 1993 and 1998 rulings, reaffirmed in 2015 [2]
• The rise in strength to 38 was made by Parliament using its power under Art. 124(1) [1][2]
• Direct elevation from the Bar (V. Mohana) uses the "advocate of 10 years" limb of Art. 124(3) [1][2]

Social: Gender and Diversity

• Two women were proposed for the SC in 2026. This is the first time several women have been appointed in one year since 2021 [1]
• Justice Nagarathna is set to become India's first woman CJI in 2027 [1]
• Women are still under-represented on the Bench, so each appointment is significant for representation.

Ethical / Governance

• Transparency: Collegium deliberations are opaque. Critics call it "judges appointing judges" [2]
• Accountability: the Yashwant Varma cash episode, which Justice Upadhyaya enquired into, shows the in-house procedure at work [1]
• Seniority vs merit: elevating HC Chief Justices follows the convention of considering all-India seniority and the representation of different High Courts.

Federal / Representational

• The three recommendees come from the Gujarat, Delhi and Telangana High Courts [1]
• Representation of different High Courts in the SC is an informal Collegium criterion. It feeds into the federal balance of the apex court.

Administrative

• Delays in the government notifying Collegium recommendations, and the absence of a finalised MoP, are recurring sources of friction [2]
• A larger bench strength (38) aims to cut SC pendency. Filling vacancies quickly is essential for that [1]

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• May 2026: V. Mohana was elevated directly from the Bar. Five judges were appointed in that batch [1]
• 2026: the SC's sanctioned strength was raised to 38 including the CJI [1]
• 28 Sept 2026: Justices Sunita Agarwal, D.K. Upadhyaya and A.K. Singh were recommended [1]
• 2025–26: the Justice Yashwant Varma controversy (half-burnt currency allegedly found). Justice Upadhyaya, as CJ of the Delhi HC, conducted the preliminary enquiry [1]

7. Prelims Hooks

• The SC Collegium recommended three HC Chief Justices for the SC on 28 Sept 2026 [1]
• Justice Sunita Agarwal is Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court [1]
• Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya is Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court [1]
• Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh is Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court [1]
• The SC's sanctioned strength is 38 judges, including the CJI [1]
• V. Mohana was elevated directly from the Bar to the SC in May 2026 [1]
• 2021: Justices Hima Kohli, B.V. Nagarathna and Bela M. Trivedi were appointed together [1]
• Justice B.V. Nagarathna is in line to be India's first woman CJI in 2027 [1]
• The SC Collegium has five members: the CJI + 4 senior-most judges [1][2]
• The Collegium system came from the Second Judges Case, 1993 [2]
• The NJAC was struck down in October 2015 [2]
• The number of SC judges is fixed by Parliament, not by the Constitution directly (Art. 124(1)) [2]
• The retirement age of SC judges is 65. It is not fixed by the Collegium [2]

8. Why Two Women in One Year Is Still a Thin Pipeline

• The numbers are still small
• According to the Law Ministry, only 6 women have been appointed to the Supreme Court since 2014. In the same period, 170 women were appointed to the High Courts [4].

• So two women in 2026 (V. Mohana and Justice Sunita Agarwal) is a real step up [1]. But it comes from a very low base.

• The Supreme Court can only pick from the people the High Courts have already produced

• This batch shows the usual route. The Collegium mostly promotes High Court Chief Justices and senior High Court judges [1].
• A woman who joins a High Court late, or with little seniority, rarely becomes a Chief Justice. That means she rarely reaches this shortlist at all.

• This is why direct elevation from the Bar (the "advocate of 10 years" route in Art. 124(3)) matters. It skips the seniority queue [1].

• Gender is not the only gap

• The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice (2023) found that since 2018, only 3% of High Court judges appointed were from Scheduled Castes and 1.5% from Scheduled Tribes [3].

• It said that the representation of SC, ST, OBC, women and minorities is "far below the desired levels" [3].

• The data itself is missing

• The same Committee asked the Department of Justice to collect data on the social background of all serving SC and HC judges [3].
• Without that data, nobody can measure whether diversity is actually improving from year to year.

9. What the Varma Enquiry Shows About Judges Checking Judges

• The in-house procedure keeps the enquiry inside the judiciary
• A sitting judge was accused. The enquiry was run by another judge: Justice Upadhyaya, as Chief Justice of the Delhi HC [1].

• The only formal removal route outside the judiciary is impeachment (removal by a vote in both Houses of Parliament) under Art. 124(4) and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Its bar is very high, so it is rarely used.

• Judges do not have to declare their assets

• Other constitutional office-holders must disclose what they own. Judges of the higher judiciary are not legally required to do so [3].

• A case about cash found at a judge's home is exactly the kind of case that regular asset declarations are meant to catch early.

• The Committee's fix: a law, not a voluntary pledge

• The Standing Committee (2023) asked the Central Government to pass a law. It would make every SC and HC judge file an annual property return [3].

10. Why a Bigger Supreme Court Won't Clear the Backlog Alone

• Promoting three Chief Justices leaves three High Courts without their head
• Gujarat, Delhi and Telangana will each lose their Chief Justice [1]. Each of those posts now has to be filled through a fresh Collegium–government process.

• Most pending cases sit in the High Courts, not the SC. High Court pendency was over 60 lakh cases [3].

• Raising the number to 38 does not solve the location problem

• All SC judges sit in Delhi. A litigant from the south or the north-east has to travel there.

• The Standing Committee (2023) recommended regional benches at four or five places. It relied on Art. 130, which lets the CJI, with the President's approval, hold SC sittings outside Delhi. Appeals would be heard regionally, and constitutional cases would stay in Delhi [3].

• Retirement at 62 empties the High Courts quickly

• HC judges retire at 62 and SC judges at 65 [3].

• The Committee asked for both ages to be raised, but only after a check of each judge's performance and health [3]. This would need a constitutional amendment.

• Missing reports make vacancies hard to track

• The Committee asked the Department of Justice to make every High Court publish an annual report [3]. Then vacancies and pendency could be tracked in public.

11. Reforms That Don't Need to Undo the NJAC Judgment

• After 2015, a fresh commission is politically and legally hard
• The Supreme Court held that judicial primacy in appointments is part of the basic structure (the core features of the Constitution that even Parliament cannot amend away).

• So any commission that gives the executive a strong role risks being struck down again.

• But some reforms work within the Collegium system

• Parliament can pass a law that makes judges declare their assets every year [3].
• The Department of Justice can collect and publish data on the social background of judges [3].
• The Collegiums can actively recommend more women and more candidates from marginalised groups, as the Standing Committee urged [3].

• The Executive and the Judiciary together can finalise the long-pending Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), with fixed deadlines for each step.

• Why this matters for your answer

• In Mains, "scrap the Collegium" is a weak conclusion. "Keep judicial primacy, add transparency by law" fits both the 2015 verdict and the Committee's report.

12. Anchors for Answers

• Data: Since 2018, only 3% of HC judges appointed were SC and 1.5% were ST [3]
• Data: 6 women appointed to the SC and 170 to the HCs since 2014 [4]
• Data: HC pendency is over 60 lakh cases [3]
• Report/Committee: Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, Judicial Processes and their Reforms (Aug 2023, chair Sushil Kumar Modi). It covers diversity data, asset declaration by law, regional benches under Art. 130 and a higher retirement age [3]
• Law/Case: Art. 124(2), (3) and (4); Art. 130 (seat of the SC); Second Judges Case (1993); Fourth Judges Case (NJAC, 2015); Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968

13. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Structure, organisation and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary; appointment to various constitutional posts; separation of powers.
• GS-IV: Probity in public life; transparency and accountability in institutions.
• Possible question stems: 1. "The Collegium system has secured judicial independence but at the cost of transparency." Critically examine, in light of the NJAC judgment and later reforms. (250 words) 2. Despite recent appointments, women remain under-represented in India's higher judiciary. Analyse the causes and suggest institutional reforms. (150 words) 3. Discuss the adequacy of the in-house procedure and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 for ensuring judicial accountability, with reference to recent controversies. (250 words)

14. Related Topics to Study Next

• Judges Cases (1981, 1993, 1998, 2015): the legal evolution of the Collegium.
• NJAC and the 99th Amendment: the failed alternative and basic structure reasoning.
• Memorandum of Procedure (MoP): the pending executive–judiciary framework.
• Removal of judges (Art. 124(4), Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968): context for the Yashwant Varma case.
• Judicial pendency and vacancies: the reason behind the increase to 38.
• All India Judicial Service (Art. 312): a debate on diversity and recruitment.
• Transfer of HC judges (Art. 222): another power exercised by the Collegium.
• Master of the Roster and CJI powers: the administrative role of the CJI.

15. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• The Collegium is not in the Constitution. It comes from judicial interpretation, not a constitutional amendment [2]
• SC strength is changed by ordinary law under Art. 124(1), not by a constitutional amendment. The current figure is 38 including the CJI, not 38 plus the CJI [1][2]
• Don't mix up the HCs: Agarwal is Gujarat, Upadhyaya is Delhi, Singh is Telangana [1]
• First woman SC judge (Fathima Beevi, 1989) is a different fact from first woman CJI (Nagarathna, expected 2027) [1][2]
• Direct elevation from the Bar is rare but constitutionally allowed. V. Mohana (2026) follows earlier precedents such as Indu Malhotra (2018) [1][2]