The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the elevation of four High Court judges as Chief Justices of different High Courts, in decisions taken at its meeting on October 26, 2026. The recommendations, conveyed through statements issued by the Supreme Court, cover the Gujarat, Delhi, Telangana and Uttarakhand High Courts, and they will now go to the Union Government for processing and notification.
The four judges recommended as Chief Justices are Justice P. Sam Koshy, Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak, Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Sudhir Singh. Each recommendation involves a different court, and together they fill some of the most important leadership positions in the higher judiciary.
Justice P. Sam Koshy, currently serving at the Telangana High Court, has been recommended for appointment as Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. His parent High Court is Chhattisgarh.
The Delhi High Court is one of the most prominent High Courts in the country, handling a vast and complex caseload that includes constitutional matters, commercial disputes, public interest litigation and cases involving the Union Government, and its Chief Justice plays a central role in the administration of justice in the national capital.
Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak, presently serving at the Gujarat High Court, has been recommended for appointment as Chief Justice of the same High Court. His parent High Court is Gauhati. A recommendation that keeps a judge in the court where he already serves is less common than a transfer to a different court, and it means the judge brings direct familiarity with the court's work, its pendency and its administrative challenges to the top job.
Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty of the Calcutta High Court has been recommended for elevation as Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court. Justice Sudhir Singh, presently a judge of the Patna High Court, has been recommended for appointment as Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court.
Both are inter-court elevations, in line with the long-standing convention that Chief Justices are generally drawn from outside the High Court they are to lead, a practice intended to promote independence and to bring fresh perspectives to each court.
The Collegium's decisions were announced through three separate statements, reflecting the different sets of recommendations made at the same meeting. Alongside the four Chief Justice recommendations, the Collegium approved proposals for the appointment of nine new judges to two other High Courts: two to the Bombay High Court and seven to the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The two names approved for the Bombay High Court are Ajay Sharma, Judicial Member of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Mumbai, and Vaibhav Anant Sugdare, an advocate. The seven advocates approved for the Madhya Pradesh High Court are 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 Collegium system is the mechanism by which judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts are appointed and transferred in India. Under this system, a body of senior Supreme Court judges, headed by the Chief Justice of India, recommends names to the government, which then processes the recommendations and issues notifications of appointment.
The system was developed through a series of Supreme Court judgments in the 1990s, and it remains the subject of ongoing debate about the balance between judicial independence and executive accountability in appointments.
A Collegium recommendation is an important step, but it is not the final step. The appointments take effect only when the Union Government accepts the recommendation and notifies them. In practice, the government processes Collegium recommendations through the Law Ministry, and the President issues the warrants of appointment.
Delays between recommendation and notification are not uncommon, and they are often a matter of public discussion, particularly when leadership positions in High Courts remain vacant or are held on an acting basis for extended periods.
That context is relevant to the current recommendations. Earlier this month, as their Chief Justices moved to the Supreme Court, the Union Government notified acting Chief Justices for three of the courts covered by the new recommendations, under Article 223 of the Constitution.
Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre took over in Delhi from Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak in Gujarat from Justice Sunita Agarwal, and Justice P. Sam Koshy in Telangana from Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh. If the government accepts the new resolutions, permanent Chief Justices would replace those acting arrangements in Delhi, Gujarat and Telangana, and the Chief Justice post in the Uttarakhand High Court would be filled.
The role of a High Court Chief Justice goes far beyond presiding over a courtroom. The Chief Justice is the administrative head of the High Court, responsible for the allocation of cases, the constitution of benches, the supervision of the district judiciary in the state, and the overall functioning of the court.
The Chief Justice also plays a key role in recommending names for appointment as High Court judges, in consultation with senior colleagues, and in the broader administration of justice in the state. The choice of Chief Justice therefore matters not only for the cases that come before the court, but for the health of the judicial system as a whole.
The recommendations also illustrate how the Collegium balances experience, seniority and the needs of different courts. Judges recommended as Chief Justices are typically senior judges with long service in the High Courts, and their parent High Courts, the courts where they were first appointed, often differ from the courts they currently serve in.
That pattern reflects the transfer policy that has shaped the higher judiciary for decades, under which judges move between High Courts during their careers, gaining experience of different legal cultures, languages and caseloads.
For the Bombay and Madhya Pradesh High Courts, the nine new appointments, if notified, will help address vacancies and strengthen benches that handle large volumes of cases. The Bombay High Court, with jurisdiction over Maharashtra and Goa, is one of the largest High Courts in the country, while the Madhya Pradesh High Court serves a large central Indian state with a substantial district judiciary.
New judges drawn from the Bar, from the tribunal system and from other branches of the legal profession bring diverse experience to the bench, and their appointment is a routine but essential part of keeping the courts functioning.
The Collegium's meeting on October 26 thus covered a significant slice of the higher judiciary's leadership and strength: four courts getting new Chief Justices, and two more courts getting nine new judges. The recommendations will now be watched closely, not only by lawyers and judges, but by anyone interested in how the judiciary renews itself and how quickly vacancies at the top are filled.
As with all Collegium recommendations, the next stage is in the government's hands. The names will be processed, background checks and consultations completed, and notifications issued if the recommendations are accepted. Until those notifications appear, the recommendations remain just that: recommendations, albeit from the highest judicial body in the country, carrying the weight of the Collegium's collective judgment about who should lead four of India's High Courts.
For the judges named, the recommendations mark a major milestone in their careers. For the courts they will lead, the appointments, if confirmed, will bring new leadership at a time when the higher judiciary faces the familiar challenges of pendency, access to justice and public trust.
And for the system as a whole, the October 26 resolutions are a reminder that judicial appointments, often discussed in abstract terms, are ultimately about individuals, courts and the daily work of delivering justice across the country.
(Reporting based on Live Law and Bar and Bench.)