Supreme Court Agrees To List Plea Seeking Timeline For Centre To Decide Collegium Recommendations
The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to list a long-pending petition seeking a binding timeline for the Union Government to act on recommendations made by the Supreme Court Collegium for the appointment of judges. The petition, filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) in 2018, raises a continuing institutional concern over delays in the judicial appointments process.
The matter was mentioned before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant by advocate Prashant Bhushan, who sought urgent listing of the petition. He pointed out that the case has not been listed since December 2023, following the retirement of Justice S K Kaul, who had been heading the bench hearing the matter.
Bhushan submitted that although some difficulties in the judicial appointments process may have been resolved, significant issues continue to remain. He therefore urged the Chief Justice to revive the proceedings and place the matter before an appropriate bench for consideration.
CJI Surya Kant indicated that the matter could now be listed, observing that the outstanding issues appeared to be more or less likely to have been resolved, while nevertheless agreeing that the petition could be taken up.
The CPIL petition assumes significance because it directly concerns the time taken by the Centre to process recommendations made by the Collegium. The petitioner has sought judicially enforceable timelines so that recommendations for judicial appointments are not left pending indefinitely with the executive.
The issue has previously come under strong scrutiny from the Supreme Court. During proceedings in 2022 and 2023, the Court had expressed concern over prolonged delays by the Centre in acting upon Collegium recommendations and had criticised instances where recommendations appeared to be dealt with selectively.
The CPIL proceedings were being heard alongside a contempt petition filed by the Advocates Association of Bengaluru. The combined proceedings had resulted in a series of directions concerning the implementation of the Collegium system and the obligation of the executive to process judicial appointment recommendations within a reasonable period.
The matter was last listed on December 5, 2023, but was subsequently deleted from the cause list without an explanation. Justice S K Kaul, who was then presiding over the proceedings, had reportedly expressed surprise at the deletion.
The long gap in listing became significant because the question of delays in judicial appointments did not disappear with the earlier proceedings. The issue continued to surface whenever Collegium recommendations remained pending for extended periods or candidates reconsidered their willingness to accept judicial office.
The matter was also mentioned for listing before former Chief Justice of India B R Gavai last year. At that stage, the Court was informed that the Collegium was pursuing the issue with the Government at the administrative level. The controversy had gained renewed attention after two lawyers reportedly withdrew their consent to become judges following prolonged delays in processing their recommendations.
The renewed listing request comes at a particularly important moment for the higher judiciary. The Supreme Court Collegium has recently completed recommendations that resulted in all 25 High Courts having regular Chief Justices, while attention is now expected to turn towards filling vacancies in the Supreme Court itself.
The larger constitutional question is whether the existing Memorandum of Procedure and the conventions governing judicial appointments are sufficient to prevent prolonged executive inaction, or whether the Supreme Court should prescribe clearer and enforceable deadlines.
A judicially mandated timeline could potentially bring greater certainty to the appointments process. At the same time, any such direction would have to operate within the constitutional framework governing the respective roles of the judiciary and executive in appointments to constitutional courts.
The case therefore has significance beyond the individual recommendations that may have remained pending in the past. It could give the Supreme Court an opportunity to revisit the institutional safeguards surrounding the Collegium system and examine whether delays in processing recommendations undermine the functioning and independence of the judiciary.
For now, the Supreme Court has only agreed to list the CPIL petition; it has not yet decided the substantive demand for fixing a mandatory timeline. The eventual hearing could nevertheless reopen one of the most persistent questions in India’s judicial appointments system: how long can the executive take to act after the Collegium has made its recommendation?
