Acting Chief Justice and Judicial Appointments: A Constitutional and Institutional Debate

Why in the News?

• A controversy involving Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, has revived an important question before the Supreme Court Collegium:
• Can an Acting Chief Justice recommend names for the appointment of judges to a High Court?
• Justice Sharma has been serving as the Acting Chief Justice since September 2025. The Supreme Court Collegium will now consider at least four names recommended by him, bringing renewed attention to the convention and procedure governing judicial appointments made during an Acting Chief Justice’s tenure.

What is the Collegium System?

The Collegium System is the mechanism currently used for appointments and transfers of judges of the higher judiciary in India.

• It is not expressly mentioned in the Constitution. 
• It evolved through a series of Supreme Court judgments known as the Judges Cases. 
• The system gives primacy to the judiciary in judicial appointments. 

Three Judges Cases

For High Court Appointments

The process generally begins with the High Court Collegium, which recommends candidates. The recommendations are subsequently considered at the Supreme Court Collegium level and then processed by the Union Government and the President under the constitutional framework.

Who is an Acting Chief Justice?

An Acting Chief Justice is appointed when the office of the Chief Justice of a High Court is vacant, or when the Chief Justice is unable to perform the functions of the office.

Constitutional Provision

Article 223 of the Constitution provides for the appointment of an Acting Chief Justice of a High Court.

• The President may appoint another judge of the High Court to perform the functions of the Chief Justice. 
• It is generally intended to be an interim arrangement until a permanent Chief Justice is appointed. 

Can an Acting Chief Justice Recommend Judges?

There is no clear constitutional prohibition preventing an Acting Chief Justice from making recommendations for the appointment of High Court judges. However, by convention, Acting Chief Justices generally do not make such recommendations, particularly when their tenure is expected to be short.

Judicial appointments require:

• Detailed assessment of candidates; 
• Consultation with other judges; 
• Consultation with the Bar; 
• Assessment of professional reputation and integrity; 
• Familiarity with the functioning of the High Court. A short-term Acting Chief Justice may not have sufficient time to undertake such extensive consultations.

However, past practice shows that exceptional cases have been handled differently by the Collegium.

The Present Rajasthan Case

Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma has served as Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court since September 2025.

The Supreme Court Collegium must consider at least four recommendations made by him.

Two Views Before the Collegium

View 1: Consider on Merit

• Recommendations should not be rejected merely because they were made by an Acting Chief Justice. 
• The candidates should be assessed on their merit and suitability. 
• Justice Sharma's relatively long tenure as Acting CJ strengthens this argument. 
• Rajasthan is also his parent High Court, giving him familiarity with the local Bar and judicial environment. 

View 2: Institutional Concern

• An Acting Chief Justice is supposed to be a temporary arrangement. 
• Accepting recommendations from Acting CJs could make prolonged acting tenures more acceptable. 
• This could reduce the institutional urgency to appoint a permanent Chief Justice. 

Judicial Precedent: Bombay High Court, 2020

The Bombay High Court case of 2020 provides an important precedent.Justice Dharmadhikari served as Acting Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court from February 20 to March 19, 2020, and subsequently became Chief Justice until his retirement on April 27, 2020.

During this period, he prepared a list of 22 candidates for appointment as High Court judges. Two consultee judges objected to the recommendations. Their concerns

They argued that:

• Proper vetting of 22 candidates required considerable time. 
• Consultation with the Bar was necessary. 
• An Acting Chief Justice with a short tenure might not be able to adequately assess all candidates. 
• The recommendations should instead be considered by the sitting Chief Justice. 

However, a third consultee judge disagreed, pointing out that Justice Dharmadhikari had served in the Bombay High Court since 2004 and was familiar with the Bar.

Outcome

• The Supreme Court Collegium forwarded 18 of the 22 recommendations to the Centre. 
• The Centre subsequently returned the names, citing the reservations of the consultee judges. 
• Fresh lists were later prepared by the High Court. 

Rajasthan High Court Case, 2022

In another case, the Centre raised objections to at least 12 names recommended by the then Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, Justice Akil Kureshi, because the recommendations had been made towards the end of his tenure.

The Supreme Court Collegium sought information on whether there were specific objections against individual candidates, including those based on intelligence inputs.

Subsequently:

• The Centre cleared 8 of the 12 names. 
• The episode demonstrated that recommendations made near the end of a Chief Justice's tenure are not automatically invalid. 

Key Takeaway

Past practice suggests that judicial recommendations have generally been considered case by case, rather than rejected solely because of the timing or status of the recommending Chief Justice.

The Broader Controversy

The present issue has emerged against the backdrop of a separate controversy concerning the functioning of the Rajasthan High Court's Acting Chief Justice.

Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta, who had earlier served in the Rajasthan High Court, wrote three letters to CJI Surya Kant seeking the replacement of the Acting Chief Justice with a Chief Justice from outside the state.

The letters reportedly contained allegations concerning:

• Manipulation of case listings; 
• Threats to fellow judges; 
• Alleged misuse of administrative powers; and 
• The unusually long tenure of the Acting Chief Justice. 

CJI's Response

CJI Surya Kant responded that allegations concerning a sitting judge should not be adjudicated through the media and should instead be dealt with through appropriate institutional mechanisms.

Why Does This Matter?

1. Quality of Judicial Appointments :-Judicial appointments require careful assessment. Inadequate scrutiny could affect the quality and credibility of the higher judiciary.
2. Judicial Vacancies :-High Courts already face significant vacancies. Returning recommendations on procedural grounds may further delay appointments.
3. Prolonged Acting Tenures :-A long Acting Chief Justice tenure raises questions about whether an interim arrangement is gradually becoming a substitute for a permanent appointment.
4. Lack of Codified Rules :-The Collegium system is substantially based on constitutional interpretation, judicial precedents and conventions, rather than a comprehensive statutory framework. This provides flexibility but can also lead to inconsistency.
5. Judicial Independence :-The issue also highlights the need to balance:Judicial independence + accountability + transparency + institutional efficiency.

Constitutional Provisions to Remember

Major Challenges in the Collegium System

• Delay in judicial appointments 
• Large number of judicial vacancies 
• Lack of transparency in selection criteria 
• Absence of a comprehensive statutory framework 
• Executive–judiciary differences over recommendations 
• Lack of uniform timelines 
• Prolonged Acting Chief Justice arrangements 
• Concerns regarding accountability and consistency 

Way Forward

• Clear Written Guidelines:-There should be clear institutional guidelines regarding whether and under what circumstances an Acting Chief Justice can recommend judicial appointments.
• Time-Bound Appointment of Chief Justices :-Permanent Chief Justices should be appointed without unnecessary delay so that interim arrangements do not become prolonged.
• Greater Transparency :-The Collegium should improve transparency regarding its criteria and decision-making process while protecting legitimate confidentiality.
• Adequate Consultation :-The appointment process should ensure meaningful consultation with judges and other relevant stakeholders, including the Bar where appropriate.
• Balance Independence with Accountability Reforms should strengthen, rather than undermine, judicial independence while improving transparency, accountability and institutional efficiency.

Conclusion

• The question of whether an Acting Chief Justice can recommend names for judicial appointments does not have a settled, universally applicable answer. While there is no explicit constitutional prohibition, conventionally Acting Chief Justices have generally avoided making such recommendations because their tenure is expected to be temporary.
• The Bombay High Court case of 2020 and the Rajasthan High Court episode of 2022 demonstrate that the Collegium has adopted a case-by-case approach.
• The present controversy therefore goes beyond one High Court. It highlights the need for clearer, transparent, consistent and time-bound norms for judicial appointments while maintaining the fundamental principle of judicial independence.

FAQs: Acting Chief Justice and Judicial Appointments