Back
Supreme Court Appoints Three Judges; Now Leads Representation with Four Judges
The today swore in three new judges—Justice Sunita Agarwal, Justice DK Upadhyaya, and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh—in a ceremony that has reignited debate over and in judicial appointments. With these elevations, the now contributes four judges to the apex bench, the highest of any High Court, while seven High Courts remain entirely unrepresented. The appointments, recommended by the in a meeting held on , were announced without the detailed reasoning that legal observers have long demanded.
New Appointments and Their Background
Justice Sunita Agarwal, previously Chief Justice of the , and Justice DK Upadhyaya, formerly Chief Justice of the , both hail from the as their parent High Court. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh, who served as Chief Justice of the , comes from the . At the time of the Collegium's recommendation, these three judges occupied the fourth, fifth, and sixth positions respectively in the list of High Court judges. Their elevation effectively superseded three more senior Chief Justices—Justices Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen, and GS Sandhawalia—a move that inevitably raises questions about the criteria guiding the Collegium's selections.
The appointments also mark the second time this year that the Collegium has bypassed
, a practice that has historically drawn criticism for its lack of
. The Collegium statement, issued under Chief Justice Surya Kant, contained no explanation of the factors considered—such as
,
, gender
, length of tenure, or any other metric. As the article notes,
"While some CJIs of the past adopted a more transparent approach in an attempt to address the main criticism levelled against the
, the
, under CJI Kant, collegium statements have consistently been as bare as they can be."
The Representation Imbalance
With the addition of Justices Agarwal and Upadhyaya, the now has four representatives on the Supreme Court bench—the highest among all High Courts. Other High Courts with significant representation include Gujarat, , and , each with three judges. , , Delhi, Jharkhand, , , and each have two judges. Meanwhile, , , , , , , and Telangana each have a single representative. This leaves seven High Courts entirely without a presence on the apex court: Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, , , , , and .
This disparity raises fundamental questions about the Supreme Court's claim to be a truly representative institution. is not merely symbolic; it ensures that distinct legal traditions and regional perspectives are brought to bear on the most significant constitutional and legal questions. The , which governs Supreme Court appointments, requires that before recommending a judge for elevation, the Chief Justice of India ascertain the views of the senior-most Supreme Court judge from the candidate's parent High Court. Consequently, a High Court with no sitting Supreme Court judge is more likely to be overlooked in future elevations and administrative matters, perpetuating a cycle of underrepresentation.
Collegium and Criteria
The Collegium's decision-making process remains a black box. The absence of a reasoned statement for these recommendations continues a trend under Chief Justice Surya Kant, who has issued consistently minimal statements. Earlier Chief Justices, such as Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice J.S. Khehar, occasionally provided detailed justifications, including the relative merit of candidates and the need for regional balance. The current Collegium's silence leaves the legal community guessing about the metrics used.
The of three senior Chief Justices further muddies the waters. While is not the sole criterion, the lack of any articulated rationale undermines the legitimacy of the process. Legal experts point out that the Collegium must balance multiple factors—, , expertise, and the need to represent all High Courts. Yet without , the perception of arbitrariness persists.
Impact on the Judiciary and Legal Practice
For legal practitioners, the composition of the Supreme Court matters directly. A bench that lacks judges from certain High Courts may be less attuned to local laws, customs, and procedural nuances. For example, the 's unique jurisprudence on hill areas and tribal rights may be underrepresented. Similarly, the 's expertise in post- legal issues is absent from the highest court.
The seven unrepresented High Courts are primarily smaller benches, often located in less populous states. Their exclusion raises concerns about and the accessibility of the Supreme Court to litigants from those regions. The Collegium's recent pattern of elevating judges from larger High Courts suggests a systemic bias that may require correction through policy guidelines or legislative intervention.
Moreover, the absence of in exacerbates other deficits, such as gender and caste representation. While the elevation of Justice Sunita Agarwal adds a second woman judge to the Supreme Court (alongside Justice B.V. Nagarathna), the overall gender balance remains poor. The legal community continues to call for a more inclusive and transparent appointment process.
Conclusion
The swearing-in of Justices Agarwal, Upadhyaya, and Singh is a significant event, but it also highlights the structural flaws in India's
. As the article aptly asks,
"Can the
, as it stands now, call itself a truly representative court?"
The answer, given the glaring absence of seven High Courts and the opaque collegium process, is likely no. Until the Collegium adopts a more transparent and balanced approach, the perception of regional imbalance and
will persist. Legal professionals and civil society must continue to advocate for reforms that ensure the Supreme Court truly reflects the
of the nation it serves.
