The Supreme Court of India Collegium has initiated a significant restructuring of high-level judicial administration by recommending four sitting High Court judges for elevation to the position of Chief Justice. The resolution, finalized during a meeting held on October 26, 2026, aims to fill key leadership vacancies across the Delhi, Gujarat, Telangana, and Uttarakhand High Courts, ensuring the continuity and effective management of judicial functions in these jurisdictions.

Under the proposed plan, Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak, currently serving at the Gujarat High Court, has been recommended for appointment as the Chief Justice of the same court. Justice P. Sam Koshy, who is presently posted at the Telangana High Court with Chhattisgarh as his parent High Court, is set to move to the national capital as the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. Additionally, the Collegium has nominated Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty of the Calcutta High Court to head the Telangana High Court, while Justice Sudhir Singh of the Patna High Court has been tapped to serve as the Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court.

Strengthening Judicial Leadership and Continuity

The recommendations come at a time when several High Courts have been operating under acting Chief Justices following the recent elevation of their former heads to the Supreme Court of India. Earlier this month, the Union Government of India notified acting arrangements under Article 223 of the Constitution to prevent administrative vacuum. Specifically, Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre has been overseeing duties in Delhi, Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak in Gujarat, and Justice P. Sam Koshy in Telangana.

By formalizing these elevations, the Collegium seeks to replace these interim measures with permanent appointments. These recommendations are part of a broader resolution that also includes the expansion of the judiciary at the puisne judge level, specifically clearing nine names for appointments at the Bombay and Madhya Pradesh High Courts. For the Bombay High Court, the Collegium approved Ajay Sharma, a Judicial Member of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, and advocate Vaibhav Anant Sugdare. Meanwhile, seven advocates have been cleared for elevation to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, including Dr. Vivek Sharan, Rajesh Kumar Shukla, Kanak Gaharwar alias Kanak Lata Singh, Bhakti Vyas, Shreyas Pandit, Mrinal Elker alias Mrinal Mazumdar, and Avinash Zargar.

The Procedural Pathway to Appointment

While the Collegium has cleared these names, the appointments will only take legal effect once the Union Government issues formal notifications. The current recommendations reflect the Collegium's ongoing commitment to ensuring that the constitutional courts remain adequately staffed to handle increasing litigation volumes. The selection process involves a meticulous review of seniority, merit, and regional representation, which remains the cornerstone of the judicial appointment system in India.

The resolution issued by the Collegium underscores the administrative necessity of these moves, particularly in the Delhi and Gujarat High Courts, which handle a substantial portion of the country's commercial and constitutional litigation. The shift of judges across state lines is a standard practice aimed at maintaining the independence of the judiciary and fostering a pan-India judicial perspective.

The inclusion of several advocates in the appointments for the Madhya Pradesh High Court highlights the continued effort to balance the bench by bringing in experienced practitioners from the bar. As the process moves forward, the legal fraternity awaits the finalization of these appointments, which are expected to bolster the strength of the respective High Courts and expedite the disposal of pending matters. The government is now expected to process these recommendations in accordance with the memorandum of procedure, setting the stage for the swearing-in of the new Chief Justices in the coming weeks. The final outcome remains subject to the formal executive approval, which serves as the concluding step in this institutional exercise of judicial administration.