Back
Centre Notifies Appointment of Advocate AK Preeta as Judge
In a significant development for the Indian judiciary, the Central Government has formally notified the appointment of Advocate A.K. Preeta as an Additional Judge of the . The announcement, made by Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal via a post on X (formerly Twitter) on April 24, 2026, marks the latest step in the ongoing process of strengthening High Court benches amid persistent vacancies. Notably, while the Collegium had recommended both Preeta and Senior Advocate Liz Mathew for elevation on April 14, the government has so far cleared only Preeta's name, sparking discussions on the dynamics between the judiciary and the executive in judicial appointments. With Preeta's extensive 29 years of practice at the , particularly in labour, employment, constitutional, and service law, her induction is poised to bolster the court's expertise in key areas, reducing vacancies from nine to eight upon her swearing-in.
Background on the Judicial Appointments Process
The appointment of High Court judges in India is governed by , which mandates consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI), the Chief Justice of the High Court, and the Governor. However, the evolution of this process has been shaped by landmark judgments establishing the collegium system. The and vested primacy in the judiciary-led collegium, comprising the CJI and senior-most judges, for recommending appointments and transfers. This system was reaffirmed in the striking down of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) in 2015, emphasizing judicial independence.
Under the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), reiterated in 2015 and under periodic review, the executive's role is consultative: it must forward collegium recommendations to the President for approval unless there are compelling objections based on material, which must be shared with the collegium for iteration. Delays or selective notifications, as seen here, often arise from executive scrutiny over suitability, integrity, or diversity considerations. The Kerala appointment underscores these tensions, with the Centre notifying only one of two names despite the collegium's joint recommendation.
Nationally, High Courts face a staggering vacancy crisis: as of early 2026, over 400 posts remain vacant out of approximately 1,114 sanctioned strength, contributing to pendency of over 60 lakh cases. , with its 47 sanctioned judges, exemplifies this, operating at 38 judges currently.
Profile of Advocate A.K. Preeta: A Seasoned Litigator
Advocate A.K. Preeta, also referred to as Preeta Aravindan Krishnamma or Preeta A.K., brings decades of distinguished practice to the bench. Enrolled with the on October 26, 1997, she has amassed 29 years of experience primarily before the , as well as and across the state.
Her expertise spans labour and employment law, constitutional law, and service law—areas witnessing surging litigation amid economic shifts, post-pandemic labour disputes, and public sector reforms. As standing counsel, Preeta has represented high-profile entities including the , , , , and These roles highlight her familiarity with complex regulatory, fiscal, and infrastructure matters intersecting with constitutional challenges.
Legal professionals anticipate her contributions to nuanced interpretations in service jurisprudence, such as disciplinary proceedings, promotions, and industrial relations under statutes like the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and Kerala Service Rules. Her elevation reflects a preference for advocates with deep High Court roots, contrasting with practitioners like Liz Mathew.
Collegium Recommendation and Centre's Selective Notification
The
Collegium, on April 14, 2026, recommended the elevation of two advocates: A.K. Preeta and Senior Advocate Liz Mathew. Mathew, known for her practice before the
, was positioned as a complementary addition. Yet, as multiple sources confirm,
"Though the
Collegium had recommended the appointment of Senior Advocate Liz Mathew along with Advocate A K Preeta, the Centre has notified only one appointment."
Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal's social media post explicitly announced Preeta's appointment, stating the Central Government had approved Advocate Preeta Aravindan Krishnamma as a judge. This selective action aligns with past instances where the government has sought clarifications or deferred secondments, invoking MoP clauses on "suitability." No official reasons for withholding Mathew's notification have been disclosed, but speculation includes ongoing vetting by the or considerations of bench diversity (gender, region, practice focus).
's Composition and Vacancy Position
The , established in 1956 under the States Reorganisation Act, serves Kerala and Lakshadweep with a sanctioned strength of 47 judges: typically 42 permanent and 5 additional. Currently, it functions with 38 judges—33 permanent and 5 additional—leaving 9 vacancies. Post Preeta's oath, this will drop to 8, a marginal but welcome relief.
This vacancy rate hampers efficiency: Kerala HC disposed of over 2.5 lakh cases in 2025 but faces a pendency of around 3.5 lakh, with labour and service matters comprising a significant portion. Preeta's addition will aid in constituting specialized benches, crucial for timely justice in high-volume domains.
Legal and Procedural Implications of the Notification
This development reignites debates on the collegium-executive equilibrium. The MoP stipulates that once recommended, names should proceed unless objected to with material shared back for collegium response. Selective notification raises questions: Is it a legitimate exercise of consultative power or undue interference? Past controversies, like delays in 30+ recommendations in 2018-2020 or the 2023 push for iterative consultations, mirror this.
For Preeta, clearance signals robust vetting success—her unblemished record and institutional representations likely expedited approval. For Mathew, pending notification could stem from her apex court focus, perceived as less attuned to state-level nuances. Legally, the collegium retains primacy; repeated government stalls risk intervention, as in the .
Broader Impact on Legal Practice and the Justice System
Preeta's appointment has multifaceted implications. Practically , it injects specialized knowledge into labour law benches, vital amid gig economy disputes, ESI claims surges, and constitutional challenges to labour codes (e.g., 2020 Codes). Her standing counsel experience equips her for public interest and regulatory cases, potentially accelerating Kochi-centric infrastructure litigations.
Systemically , it addresses the 19% vacancy rate at Kerala HC, aiding case management under e-filing and AI tools. Nationally, it pressures clearance of 200+ pending recommendations, curbing pendency that erodes public trust. For the bar, it incentivizes High Court mastery over SC appearances for elevations, promoting grassroots expertise.
Diversity gains: As a woman with regional ties, Preeta enhances gender balance (Kerala HC has ~25% women judges). Yet, full bench replenishment is key; delays exacerbate workloads on sitting judges, risking burnout and errors.
Conclusion: A Step Forward Amid Ongoing Challenges
The notification of Advocate A.K. Preeta's appointment is a positive stride toward fortifying the
, leveraging her
"29 years of experience as an advocate in the High Court of Kerala"
and specialized standing counsel roles. However, the Centre's pause on Liz Mathew underscores persistent frictions in the appointment ecosystem. As Preeta prepares to take oath, legal stakeholders await holistic implementation of collegium recommendations to combat vacancies comprehensively. In an era of judicial overload, such elevations are not mere formalities but imperatives for upholding constitutional justice.
