Back
Appoints Eight Chief Justices, All 25 High Courts Now Have Regular Heads
In a significant move that restores full-time leadership to every High Court in the country, the on Saturday notified the appointment of Chief Justices to eight High Courts, effectively ending the era of acting arrangements that had left several constitutional courts without permanent heads. The notifications, issued on , follow a series of recommendations from the Collegium and mark the completion of a long-pending exercise to fill all 25 High Court Chief Justice positions with regular incumbents.
The development comes at a time when judicial administration has been under strain due to mounting litigation and persistent vacancies in the higher judiciary. With these appointments, the Collegium is now expected to shift its focus toward filling four vacancies in the , which arose after an increase in the apex court’s under a amendment.
A Sweeping Round of Appointments
The eight newly appointed Chief Justices are drawn from various High Courts across the country, reflecting a careful balance of experience and regional representation. Justice Valluri Kameswar Rao, a judge of the , has been appointed as Chief Justice of the . Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge of the will head the , while Justice Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, who was serving as Chief Justice of the in an acting capacity, has been appointed as Chief Justice of the .
Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi of the will take charge as Chief Justice of the , one of the most prestigious postings in the country. Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra of the , who had been serving as there, has been confirmed as the of the same court. Justice Krushna Ram Mohapatra of the moves to the as its Chief Justice. Justice Alpesh Yeshvant Kogje of the will head the , and Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati of the has been appointed Chief Justice of the .
Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal announced the appointments, emphasizing that they were made on the recommendations of the Collegium, which had issued a series of resolutions in . The Collegium’s recommendations for the were made separately, following the retirement of its outgoing Chief Justice, Justice Ramesh Sinha, on .
Filling a Persistent Vacuum
Prior to this notification, seven of the 25 High Courts were functioning without permanent Chief Justices, with acting judges presiding over crucial administrative and judicial functions. The vacancies had arisen due to a combination of retirements and elevations to the . In , four High Court Chief Justices—Justice Sheel Nagu (), Justice Chandrashekhar (), Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva (), and Justice Arun Palli ()—were elevated as judges of the , creating immediate vacancies.
Acting Chief Justices were swiftly appointed to fill the gaps: Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra took over at Punjab & Haryana, Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghughe at Bombay, Justice Vivek Rusia at Madhya Pradesh, and Justice Sanjeev Kumar at Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. Other vacancies arose due to retirements, such as that of Justice Kalpathi Rajendra Shriram at the , where Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma served as since . At the , Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty was appointed after Justice Sujoy Paul retired on . Similarly, Justice Sudhir Singh was at the following the retirement of Justice Meenakshi M. Rai on .
The appointment of Justice Sanjay Kumar Agrawal to is particularly notable, as he was performing the duties of Chief Justice of the after Justice Ramesh Sinha’s retirement just a day before the notification.
Controversy Over Punjab & Haryana Appointment
While the appointments have been widely welcomed as a step toward institutional stability, one has sparked controversy. The has formally objected to the appointment of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra as Chief Justice of the . The state contends that its views were not sought before the notification was issued, as required under the governing judicial appointments.
The has urged that the appointment and administration of the oath be kept in abeyance pending consultation. The objection raises questions about the role of state governments in the appointment of High Court Chief Justices, a process that has traditionally been dominated by the Collegium and the . The , which outlines the consultative process, is a contentious document that has been the subject of repeated litigation and debate over the respective roles of the judiciary and the executive.
Implications for Judicial Administration
The filling of all 25 High Court Chief Justice posts is expected to bring greater institutional stability to the judiciary. A permanent Chief Justice plays a central role in the constitution of benches, allocation of judicial and administrative work, listing of cases, and overall institutional functioning. Acting Chief Justices, while competent, often face limitations in long-term planning and policy decisions.
The appointments also come against the backdrop of the ongoing debate over the . Critics argue that the system lacks transparency and excludes state governments from meaningful participation. The ’s objection is likely to reignite calls for reform, though the has consistently upheld the in judicial appointments.
With the High Court vacancies now resolved, attention will turn to the . Four vacancies have emerged following the increase in the apex court’s under the amendment, and another vacancy is expected later this year with the retirement of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. The Collegium is expected to initiate the process of recommending names for elevation to the in the coming weeks.
Conclusion
The Centre’s notification of eight Chief Justices marks a milestone in the ongoing effort to ensure full-time leadership across India’s High Courts. While the appointments bring administrative stability, the Punjab controversy underscores the enduring tensions in the judicial appointments process. For legal professionals, the development signals a return to normalcy in High Court functioning, even as the broader debate over and continues to simmer. The legal community will be watching closely to see how the Collegium navigates the next round of elevations and whether the objections raised by Punjab lead to any procedural changes.
