ON
← Back to feed
Supreme Court collegium to recommend five judges for high court chief justices
India🏛️ PoliticsCenter9 days ago

Supreme Court collegium to recommend five judges for high court chief justices

The Supreme Court collegium in India has decided to recommend five judges for appointment as chief justices of various high courts, aiming to address vacancies that have led to several courts operating under acting chief justices. The collegium, chaired by Chief Justice Surya Kant, includes recommendations such as reappointing Justice V Kameswar Rao as chief justice of the Patna High Court and promoting acting chief justices like Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra (Punjab and Haryana High Court) and Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma (Rajasthan High Court) to full-time roles. Other appointments include Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi for the Bombay High Court and Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge for the Calcutta High Court. However, decisions on appointments for the Madhya Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh high courts remain pending. These moves aim to provide permanent leadership to five high courts, while two continue to operate under acting chief justices.

The Supreme Court Collegium, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, has recommended four senior judges for elevation to the posts of Chief Justices of four High Courts. These recommendations were made during a meeting held on August 6, 2026, and confirmed through a resolution published on August 9, 2026. The proposed appointments aim to fill long-standing vacancies in the High Courts of Patna, Calcutta, Bombay, and Punjab and Haryana, which have been operating under acting chief justices for extended periods. Justice V. Kameswar Rao, currently serving as a judge in the Delhi High Court, has been recommended for the role of Chief Justice of the Patna High Court. Rao was appointed as an Additional Judge in the Delhi High Court in April 2013 and became a Permanent Judge in March 2015. In 2024, he was transferred to the Karnataka High Court and returned to the Delhi High Court in July 2025. His experience spans multiple jurisdictions and includes service in both metropolitan and regional courts. For the Calcutta High Court, Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge, who is currently acting as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, has been proposed for elevation. Ghuge was elevated as a judge of the Bombay High Court in 2013 and has served in that capacity since. His tenure as acting chief justice began after the appointment of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar to the Supreme Court. Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, a judge of the Allahabad High Court, has been recommended for the post of Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. Tripathi was elevated as an Additional Judge in September 2013 and became a Permanent Judge in April 2015. His career has focused primarily on civil and constitutional law, with notable contributions in judicial reforms and legal education. Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra, who is based at the Punjab and Haryana High Court, has been proposed for the Chief Justiceship of that court. Mishra took the oath as an Additional Judge in February 2014 and was made a Permanent Judge in February 2016. He was transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court in July 2025, bringing his extensive experience in administrative and procedural law to bear on the bench. In addition to these four appointments, the Collegium has reportedly considered recommending another judge for the Rajasthan High Court. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, who has been acting as Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court since September 28, 2025, has been suggested for a full-time appointment. However, there has been no official confirmation of this recommendation yet. The current situation in several High Courts has highlighted the urgency of these appointments. As of August 1, 2026, the Bombay High Court has been under the acting chief justiceship of Justice Ghuge since June 2, 2026. Similarly, the Calcutta High Court has been managed by Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty since June 21, 2026. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has been under Justice Mishra’s interim leadership since June 2, 2026, and the Rajasthan High Court has been guided by Justice Sharma since September 28, 2025. Meanwhile, the Patna High Court has also been functioning under an acting chief justice. These recommendations come amid broader structural changes within the higher judiciary. The Supreme Court itself faces challenges due to three existing vacancies, with two more anticipated later in the year. Justice Sanjay Karol is set to retire on August 22, 2026, having joined the Supreme Court on February 6, 2023. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma will retire on November 29, 2026, following his elevation to the apex court on November 9, 2023. The proposed appointments are expected to provide stability to five High Courts, though the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh remain without permanent chief justices. The Union government is likely to receive the signed recommendations soon, paving the way for formal appointments. This process underscores the importance of timely judicial appointments in maintaining the efficiency and integrity of the Indian legal system.

3 reports

Hindustan Times logoHindustan TimesIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 9515 days ago
Supreme Court collegium to recommend five judges for high court chief justices

The Supreme Court collegium in India has decided to recommend five judges for appointment as chief justices of various high courts, aiming to address vacancies that have led to several courts operating under acting chief justices. The collegium, chaired by Chief Justice Surya Kant, includes recommendations such as reappointing Justice V Kameswar Rao as chief justice of the Patna High Court and promoting acting chief justices like Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra (Punjab and Haryana High Court) and Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma (Rajasthan High Court) to full-time roles. Other appointments include Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi for the Bombay High Court and Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge for the Calcutta High Court. However, decisions on appointments for the Madhya Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh high courts remain pending. These moves aim to provide permanent leadership to five high courts, while two continue to operate under acting chief justices.

Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information about judicial appointments and does not take a clear ideological stance. It reports on procedural decisions made by the collegium without apparent bias toward any political faction. The framing remains neutral, focusing on the administrative process rather

Why factuality (90): This article accurately reports the collegium's decisions, naming the judges and their proposed roles. It mentions five judges being recommended, which is slightly more than the first article but likely due to additional context or updates. The details match the cross-source consensus and provide ad

Why objectivity (95): The article maintains a highly neutral tone throughout, presenting the information objectively without taking sides or injecting personal opinions. It uses standard journalistic language and avoids any biased phrasing.

The Hindu logoThe HinduIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 9014 days ago
Supreme Court Collegium recommends Chief Justices for four HCs

The Supreme Court Collegium, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, has recommended new Chief Justices for four High Courts in India. The recommendations were announced following a meeting on August 6, 2026, with the resolution published on August 9, 2026. Justice V. Kameswar Rao is suggested for the Patna High Court, having served as a Delhi High Court judge since 2015. Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge is recommended for the Calcutta High Court, currently acting as the Bombay High Court's Chief Justice. Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi is proposed for the Bombay High Court, while Justice Ashwini Kumar Mishra is recommended for the Punjab and Haryana High Court. All candidates have extensive judicial experience, with transfers between high courts in recent years.

Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information about the Collegium's recommendation process and the qualifications of the judges being considered. There is no overt ideological slant, emphasis on specific political agendas, or biased language. The focus remains on procedural and institutional matters, and

Why factuality (85): The article provides specific details about the collegium's recommendations including names, positions, and dates of appointments. These align with the cross-source consensus from the second article, though some minor discrepancies exist such as the mention of 'resolution published on Sunday (August

Why objectivity (90): The article presents the information in a neutral manner, using formal language and avoiding any overt bias or emotional language. It reports facts without apparent editorializing or opinion.

Hindustan Times logoHindustan TimesIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 759 days ago
SC dismisses plea against AP HC order quashing case against CM Chandrababu Naidu, minister

The Supreme Court of India dismissed a plea challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision to quash a case against Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu and minister P Narayana. The case stemmed from allegations of irregularities in the land pooling scheme for Amaravati, the state's new capital. The High Court had previously stayed further proceedings after the ministers filed petitions to quash the case. The FIR was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act in 2021 following a complaint by MLA Alla Rama Krishna Reddy. The CID investigation named the ministers as accused, but the High Court ruled in favor of the ministers, citing the political nature of the case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the outcome would not affect other cases and warned against using legal avenues for political battles.

Bias read (Center): The article presents the judicial process objectively, detailing both the charges against the ministers and the court's reasoning. While the case involves high-profile political figures, the reporting does not take a clear ideological stance. The Supreme Court's emphasis on preventing political use

Why factuality (85): The article reports the Supreme Court's decision to dismiss a plea against the Andhra Pradesh High Court's order quashing a case against CM Chandrababu Naidu. It provides details about the legal process, including the bench composition, arguments from the senior advocate, and references to the FIR r

Why objectivity (75): The article maintains a generally neutral tone but includes some emotionally charged statements such as 'political battles should not be fought in court,' which may reflect a subtle editorial stance. The mention of the CJI's comment suggests an underlying value judgment about the nature of the dispu

How each side covered it

The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.

How each side covered it

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Covered around the world

The same event as reported in other countries.

Covered around the world

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Claims check

Key factual claims, and how many sources assert vs dispute each.

Claims check

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Keep the news honest.

ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.

Become a Supporter

Related stories