The judicial oversight process for appointing judges to the higher judiciary faced a procedural pause on Monday as Justice PS Narasimha of the Supreme Court of India recused himself from hearing a petition concerning the long-pending finalization of the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) . The petition, filed by the non-governmental organization Loka Prahari , seeks to compel the Chief Justice of India and the Central Government to resolve the deadlock surrounding the guidelines that govern judicial appointments and to bring the decision-making process of the Collegium within the ambit of the Right to Information Act .

The matter had been listed before a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe. Upon the commencement of the hearing, Justice Narasimha informed the counsel present that he would be unable to preside over the proceedings. His recusal was based on his prior engagement as an Additional Solicitor General in legal proceedings concerning the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), which directly involved the interpretation and development of the MoP. By stepping aside, the court has effectively delayed the immediate consideration of the plea, necessitating that the case be re-assigned to a different bench for future hearings.

The Protracted Standoff Over Appointment Protocols

At the heart of the litigation is the MoP, a foundational document that dictates the administrative process for the appointment, elevation, and transfer of judges across High Courts and the Supreme Court . While the original framework dates back to June 1999 , following the landmark Second Judges Case , the document has remained a focal point of contention for nearly 11 years. The current petitioner argues that the existing lack of a finalized, revised MoP contributes to systemic opacity , which in turn affects the quality and impartiality of judicial appointments to constitutional courts .

The discourse surrounding the MoP intensified significantly in 2015 when Parliament enacted the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act , an attempt to introduce a representative body to replace the Collegium system. However, the subsequent Supreme Court judgment, which struck down the NJAC as unconstitutional on the grounds that it threatened the independence of the judiciary, left the existing system in a state of flux. The apex court explicitly directed the government to collaborate with the Chief Justice of India and the Collegium to finalize a revised MoP that would ensure greater transparency, a permanent secretariat, and a clear mechanism for handling complaints against potential judicial candidates.

Demands for Transparency and Accountability

The plea filed by Loka Prahari urges the Court to address these long-standing shortcomings. Beyond the administrative necessity of finalizing the MoP, the NGO’s petition emphasizes the urgent need for transparency, specifically by bringing the minutes of Collegium meetings under the Right to Information Act . The petitioner asserts that the absence of objective standards has created a void in the selection process, which they claim is inconsistent with the constitutional requirement for judicial independence and integrity.

"Finalisation of the MoP for appointment of judges of constitutional courts at the earliest is necessary to ensure that it meets the requirement of the selection process ensuring that they possess four essential qualities of impartiality, fearlessness, transparency and purity mandated by the Constitution Bench," the petition states. The argument posits that because the decisions made by judges in constitutional courts are final and carry significant societal implications, the process of their selection must be shielded from ambiguity.

Historical Tensions and Previous Judicial Interventions

This current petition is not the first instance where the delay in finalizing the MoP has been brought before the judiciary. The disagreement between the executive and the judiciary has manifested in various stages over the last decade. During the tenure of former Chief Justice TS Thakur, for instance, a notable disagreement arose in 2017 when the Collegium unanimously rejected government proposals that would have empowered the executive to veto judicial recommendations based on "national security" concerns. Further proposals, such as the establishment of a permanent secretariat for judicial appointments , were similarly sidelined, leading to prolonged administrative stagnation.

In October 2017 , the issue reached another inflection point when a bench including Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit took cognizance of a petition by advocate RP Luthra . At that time, the court observed that the delay in the MoP’s finalization could not be sustained indefinitely, especially as nearly two years had passed since the initial 2015 directive. While that matter was eventually withdrawn and re-listed under then-Chief Justice Dipak Misra, leading to the recall of earlier observations, the core issue remained unresolved.

The Current Procedural Status

By seeking directions to the Chief Justice of India to exercise administrative authority to conclude the process, the Loka Prahari petition represents a fresh attempt to break the cycle of delays. The prayer before the court includes a specific directive to the Union Ministry of Law and Justice to complete the revision of the MoP within a fixed window of one month following consultation with the Chief Justice.

The recusal of Justice Narasimha highlights the sensitivity surrounding the matter and the interconnected history of the judges and lawyers who have navigated the NJAC and MoP litigations over the years. As the registry prepares to re-list the matter, the legal community remains observant, awaiting a bench that can balance the delicate separation of powers while ensuring that the administrative framework for judicial appointments aligns with the standards of transparency demanded by the petitioners. For now, the case remains pending, with the procedural path forward resting on the Chief Justice’s administrative prerogative to assign a new bench to hear the request.