Karnataka High Court Justice Krishna Dixit addressed his rumoured transfer while hearing a case on April 17.

When a lawyer appearing before him sought a date in a matter, he remarked in lighter vein that the parties may have a good bench next week, alluding to the fact that the case might get listed before some other Bench soon owing to his impending transfer from the High Court.

“Next week anyway you may have a good bench also. You are weeding away all bad people now,” he said smiling. 

He also said that he is ready to work anywhere and it is his duty.

“When a soldier is posted somewhere, it is his duty to go there. He should go there happily and work, that is all. If we go there, there will be specialities for us. Will they send us to the Himalayas? If a High Court bench is set up in the Himalayas, I will go there too. No problem.”

Senior Advocate PS Rajagopal, who was then arguing for the defendants, said,

“I request the judge not to utter that word. Please do not get this impression. I was saying outside, if we do not learn to protest, we will perish. That does not mean that all our protests will be successful.”

Justice Dixit, sitting in a Division Bench with Justice Ramachandra D Huddar, laughed and said,

“We will not subscribe to that. It is all part of the policy. When we say that we should be committed to the transfer, This applies to us too.”

To this, Rajagopal said,

“I have the right to express my opinion. It just means that we should be able to express our feelings.”

Advocate General K Shashikaran Shetty, who was present there, also endorsed.

Rajagopal continued,

“You yourself told me ten days ago that the service law does not apply to constitutional positions. We understand your position. However, something needs to be done from the bar. I am not entitled to express my opinion on this platform. However, I request you to forgive my openness.”

Even though the Supreme Court Collegium has not released any statement yet regarding the transfer of Karnataka High Court, rumours have been swirling that four of its judges may be moved out to other High Courts. 

Recently, the President of Advocates Association (R) of Karnataka High Court's Dharwad Bench wrote to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna opposing the reported move.

According to the Bar President VM Sheelavant, there is a proposal to transfer Justices Krishna Dixit, K Natarajan, Hemant Chandangoudar and Sanjay Gouda to other High Courts.  

"The members of the Bar across the State of Karnataka are in a State of disbelief on hearing the rumours about the intended or proposed transfer of few of the best legal minds serving as Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Karnataka," Sheelavant said in the letter written to the CJI.

Spotlight is a series where we shine the, well, spotlight on members of the legal fraternity who made the news over the past week.

The spotlight was on Justice JB Pardiwala and the Supreme Court of India this week following a landmark judgment, inviting both criticism and high praise from jurists and netas on both sides of the political spectrum. 

A two-judge bench headed by Justice Pardiwala and also comprising Justice R Mahadevan delineated the powers of the President and the Governors over the laws passed by state legislatures. 

The verdict irked Vice President of India Jagdeep Dhankar and others close to the ruling dispensation at the Centre, but was hailed as historic by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin, whose government had approached the top court against Governor RN Ravi’s decision to keep ten bills pending for unduly long periods.

The ruling laid down a specific timeline for the Governors to act on bills sent to them for their assent. The Court also defined the contours of the President of India’s powers when a bill passed by a state legislature is reserved by the Governor for the consideration of the President. It said that the President’s decision in such cases is subject to judicial review, and they must make a decision on the bill within three months or convey the reasons to the concerned state. 

The apex court added that where a bill has been reserved because it involves questions of Constitutional validity, it is the judiciary which will decide its validity and such laws should, as a matter of practice, be referred to the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution. 

Ultimately, the Court used its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and declared the 10 bills to have been assented to by the Tamil Nadu Governor. 

Vice-President Dhankar was not too pleased with the Court's ruling. He said that the judiciary was acting as a “super-parliament” without any accountability. 

"There is a directive to the President by a recent judgment. Where are we heading? What is happening in the country? We have to be extremely sensitive. It is not a question of someone filing a review or not. We never bargained for democracy for this day. President being called upon to decide in a time-bound manner and if not, it becomes law. So we have judges who will legislate, who will perform executive functions, who will act as super Parliament and absolutely have no accountability because law of the land does not apply to them," he said. 

He also called Article 142 a nuclear missile against “democratic forces”. 

"[It] has become a nuclear missile against democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24x7," he stated. 

On the other hand, the Tamil Nadu government and many opposition leaders hailed the verdict, calling it historic and a “golden day in the history of India”. Chief Minister Stalin said the judgment is a huge victory for all states in India and a vindication of federalism, state autonomy and Dravidian politics. 

Tamil Nadu’s Minister for Information Technology and Digital Services Palanivel Thiagarajan said that judgments like these refine the constitutional interpretations and “remove a lacuna in the procedural implementation of the Constitution, which has been exploited unscrupulously in the past”.

The Court in its judgment lamented the "scant respect shown by the Governor" to an earlier decision of the Court on Governor's delaying assent to bills. It also laid out the role the Governor is expected to play, especially in states which are ruled by opposition parties.

"He must perform his role of a friend, philosopher and guide with dispassion, guided not by considerations of political expediency but by the sanctity of the constitutional oath he undertakes."

This is not the first time Justice Pardiwala, a future Chief Justice of India (CJI), has been in the news. His legal journey is defined by consequential judgments that had political ramifications. We examine the legal milestones and contentious episodes that have shaped his ascent in the Indian judiciary.

Justice Jamshed Burjor Pardiwala was born on August 12, 1965, in a well-known family of legal professionals from Gujarat’s Valsad. He is a fourth-generation lawyer. 

His great-grandfather, Navrojji Bhikhaji Pardiwala, began practising law in 1894 in Valsad. His grandfather Cawasji Navrojji Pardiwala joined the Bar in 1929 and practised till 1958. His father, Burjor Cawasji Pardiwala, joined the profession in 1955. He also served as the Speaker of the 7^th Gujarat Legislative Assembly from December 1989 to March 1990. 

Like the previous generations of his family, Justice Pardiwala also started his legal journey in Valsad in 1989. However, he moved to the Gujarat High Court the next year.  

In 2011, he was appointed as an additional judge of the Gujarat High Court and became a permanent judge in 2013. He was then elevated to the Supreme Court on May 9, 2022, and is expected to become the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in May 2028. He will serve as CJI until August 2030, with a relatively long tenure of more than two years at the helm.

Punjab Governor's actions

The April 8 judgement is not the first time Justice Pardiwala has been critical of Governors stalling the state legislatures. 

In November 2023, a bench of then CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra denounced Punjab Governor Banwarilal Purohit for casting a doubt on the special assembly session called by the Speaker of the house.

Even then, the Court said that the Governor cannot be allowed to 'virtually veto' the functioning of the elected legislature by simply declaring that assent is withheld without any further recourse.

Against Gujarat government for 2002 riots

In February 2012, a Gujarat High Court bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya and Justice Pardiwala rapped the then State government headed by Narendra Modi for their inaction over the destruction of over 500 religious structures during the 2002 riots. 

Views on reservation

Justice Pardiwala was also part of a Constitution Bench that upheld the 103^rd Amendment to the Constitution of India by a 3:2 majority. The law made provisions for reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of society in education and government jobs. In his separate opinion, Justice Pardiwala reasoned that the words “weaker sections” used in Article 46 cannot be read to mean only the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes.

Importantly, he also said that reservation/quotas cannot continue indefinitely.

In his 117-page judgment, Justice Pardiwala held that development and the spread of education have resulted in tapering the gap between different classes to a considerable extent. The judge said that it is was necessary to review the method of identification and determination of backward classes, and to ascertain whether the criteria applied for such classification of backward classes is relevant in today’s scenario.

Justice Pardiwala was of the view that the new concept of economic criteria introduced by the 103^rd Amendment for affirmative action may go a long way in eradicating caste-based reservation.

Justice Pardiwala had expressed similar views on reservation in the Patidar agitation led by Hardik Patel. Controversy erupted when Justice Pardiwala refused to quash the sedition case against Patel and other key Patidar agitation movement leaders. In his judgment, he called the reservation system an “amoeboid monster”, which, along with corruption, is responsible for the “destruction of the country”.

These observations landed him in trouble in 2015 and an impeachment motion was filed against him in the Rajya Sabha. 

Interestingly, the same opposition parties who are now praising his judgment on Governors were the ones who had sought impeachment proceedings against him. As many as 58 Rajya Sabha Members of Parliament (MPs) filed an impeachment motion against him. The signatories included leaders of the Congress, DMK, BSP, JD (U), NCP, CPI, CPI (M) and others. The MPs said,

"It is distressing that Justice JB Pardiwala should be unaware of the constitutional provision with respect to the policy for the SCs and the STs.”

They added that his observations are unconstitutional in nature and amount to “behaviour misconduct towards the Constitution of India”, which is a ground for impeachment. 

However, the judge withdrew his remarks after the Gujarat government filed a motion before the High Court. 

“…paragraph 62 in the judgement was not relevant or necessary for the purpose of deciding the main matter, and in such circumstances, paragraph 62 may be deleted…,” he said. 

Soon, the controversy died down. 

With a tenure of over five years remaining, Justice Pardiwala is certain to be at the centre of many more contentious issues. As a judge, and later as CJI, he is bound to play a big role in shaping the legal landscape and the future of the Supreme Court. It will be interesting how he navigates his role at a time when the judiciary has been criticised for not doing enough to quell executive excesses and parliamentary inequities.

The Delhi High Court recently warned against treating women like property by referring to the treatment of Draupadi in the Mahabharat, while deciding a 2010 case involving allegations of adultery under the now-struck-down provision of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

In an April 17 ruling, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that despite the well-documented plight of Draupadi in the Mahabharata and the consequences which followed, a misogynistic and patriarchal mindset that women are property continued to prevail in our society.

“The woman being considered as the property of the husband and its devastating consequences are well documented in Mahabharat wherein Draupadi was put on stake in a game of gamble by none other than her own husband Yudhishtra where other four brothers were the silent spectators and Draupadi had no voice to protest for her dignity. As it happened, she was lost in the game of gamble and what followed was the great war of Mahabharat leading to mass loss of lives and wiping out of many of the family members. Despite having such example to demonstrate the consequence of absurdity of treating of a woman as a chattel, the misogynistic mindset of our Society understood this only when the Apex Court declared Section 497 IPC as unconstitutional in the case of Joseph Shine (supra),” the Court stated. 

Section 497 of the IPC used to criminalise the offence of adultery, but only the man with whom a married woman had an affair could be held liable. Further, if the husband of the woman gives his consent for such an affair, no offence would have arisen.

In 2018, the Supreme Court declared Section 497 of the IPC unconstitutional after noting that it was premised on assumptions that women were like chattel or property.

The adultery case before the Delhi High Court, however, dated back to 2010.

The case concerned a couple who had married in 1998. In 2010, the husband discovered that his wife was having an adulterous relationship with another man. He found from his wife’s call logs that she used to talk to the man at odd hours of the night. He later found that the wife had stayed overnight with the man at a hotel in Lucknow. 

He first served a legal notice on his wife asking her to stop the adultery. Thereafter, he proceeded to file a criminal complaint of adultery against the man who whom she allegedly had the extramarital affair.

The trial court discharged the adulterer, citing a lack of evidence of any sexual relations between the wife and the man. This decision was overturned by the Sessions Court, which proceeded to summon the man to face criminal trial.

The man then moved the Delhi High Court, urging it to quash the summons issued to him.

In the meantime, the wife obtained a divorce from her husband in 2016.

The High Court considered whether the Joseph Shine verdict of 2018, passed by the Supreme Court that struck down Section 497 IPC as unconstitutional, would apply retrospectively to the present case lodged in 2010. 

The Court concluded that the 2018 verdict would apply retrospectively.

“This aspect has been considered in the judgment Maj. Genl. A.S. Gauraya & Anr. Vs. S.N. Thakur 1986 AIR 1440 wherein the Apex Court had held that declaration of law by the Supreme Court applies to all the pending proceedings even with retrospective effect,” the Court noted.

The Court added that the trial court had rightly observed that there can be no presumption of sexual intercourse only because the wife stayed overnight in the same room with the man at a hotel in Lucknow.

It, therefore, set aside the summoning order and discharged the accused man from the criminal case.

“The gravamen of Section 497 is that they must have indulged in the act of adultery i.e. they must have had sexual intercourse for which there is no oral or documentary evidence, but is based on a presumption which cannot be considered prima facie for summoning of the Petitioner. The essential ingredients of Section 497 IPC, were therefore, not made out,” the Court held. 

Advocate Satish Kumar appeared for the husband.

Advocate JS Rawat appeared for the accused man.

Additional Public Prosecutor Meenakshi Dahiya appeared for the State.

[Read judgment] 

A federal judge in the District of Columbia on April 15 issued a temporary restraining order halting the enforcement of major provisions of an executive order by Trump Administration targeting prominent law firm Susman Godfrey LLP.

The Court order specifically restrained the federal government from implementing Sections 1, 3, and 5 of the Executive Order that was issued by President Trump on April 9.

The blocked sections include statements about the law firm's alleged activities, requirements for government contractors to disclose business relationships with the firm and restrictions on interactions between government employees and the firm.

"Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED," stated Judge Loren L Alikhan in the order.

The Trump government on April 9, passed an executive order against the firm stating that "lawyers and law firms that engage in activities detrimental to critical American interests should not have access to our Nation’s secrets, nor should their conduct be subsidized by Federal taxpayer funds or contracts."

It further declared that the administration must take measures to guard against "actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest" when the government funds or engages with firms whose actions undermine U.S. interests.

The order accused Susman Godfrey LLP (Susman) of "weaponiz[ing] the American legal system and degrad[ing] the quality of American elections."

It also alleged that Susman funds groups that engage in dangerous efforts to undermine the effectiveness of the United States military through the injection of political and radical ideology and supports efforts to discriminate on the basis of race.

Additionally, the order claimed that Susman engages in unlawful discrimination citing a program that offers financial awards and employment opportunities exclusively to "students of color."

The Administration asserted its commitment to ending such practices, stating that those who engage in blatant discrimination should not have access to federal benefits or classified information.

Key directions against Susman:

1. Security Clearance Review:

   • The Attorney General, Director of National Intelligence, and other agency heads were directed to immediately take steps consistent with applicable law to suspend any active security clearances held by individuals at Susman, pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest.

   • The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must identify all federal resources provided to Susman, including Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs), and agencies must "expeditiously cease such provision" where permitted by law.

2. Federal Contracting Restrictions:

   • Agencies were directed to require contractors to disclose any business with Susman and determine if it relates to government contracts.

   • Agencies were also directed to review and, where possible, terminate contracts with Susman or its affiliates, ensuring funding aligns with the interests of the citizens of the United States.

   • Within 30 days, agencies must submit an assessment of Susman-related contracts and actions taken to OMB.

3. Personnel and Access Restrictions:

   • Agency heads must limit federal building access for Susman employees when it threatens national security or U.S. interests.

   • Federal employees were restricted from official engagement with Susman unless consistent with national security.

   • Agencies were barred from hiring Susman employees without a waiver from the agency head and the Office of Personnel Management.

Judge AliKhan’s order has essentially stopped federal agencies from enforcing these directives, stating that Sections 1 (background and rationale), 3 (contracting restrictions), and 5 (personnel and access limitations) cannot be given effect until further notice. The court ordered agencies to:

• Rescind any guidance implementing the blocked sections,

• Notify all recipients of related disclosure requests that those requests are revoked,

• Cease all enforcement actions under the enjoined provisions,

• Treat the provisions as if they “had never issued.”

The Department of Justice, the Office of Management and Budget, and other implicated agencies must file a compliance status report by April 16.

Targeting Susman is a part of the Trump administration's crackdown against law firms over their diversity policies and their past actions in support of the Democrats.

Earlier this month, over 500 United States law firms filed an amicus brief supporting Perkins Coie's legal challenge against the Donald Trump administration’s March 6 executive order targeting the firm.

Susman was represented by Munger, Tolles & Olsen LLP.

[Read Judgment]

Judicial Appointments Tracker aims to provide monthly updates on the appointment status of a candidate from the time they are recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium until the appointment is cleared by the Central government.

Below are the details of the recommendations made by the Collegium in March 2025 and their current status.

March 5

The Collegium recommended the appointment of seven lawyers as Rajasthan High Court judges.

The Central government cleared four of the names on March 26 while three are pending.

The candidates who have not been cleared are Sandeep Taneja, Baljinder Singh Sandhu and Sheetal Mirdha.

On March, the Collegium also recommended the appointment of three additional judges of Jammu and Kashmir High Court - Justices Wasim Sadiq Nargal, Rajesh Sekhri and Mohammad Yousuf Wani - as permanent judges.

The same was cleared by the government on March 10.

March 6

The Collegium on March 6 recommended the elevation of Justice Joymalya Bagchi of Calcutta High Court to the Supreme Court.

The Central government cleared the same on March 10 and he took oath on March 17.

At the Supreme Court, Justice Bagchi will have a considerably long tenure of over 6 years and will become the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in May 2031 upon retirement of Justice KV Viswanathan.

However, he will serve as CJI only for a relatively short duration since he will retire in October 2031.

Justice Bagchi will be the first CJI from Calcutta after late CJI Altamas Kabir who retired from office in 2013.

The Collegium on March 6 also recommended that Jammu and Kashmir High Court Justice Atul Sreedharan be repatriated to his parent court - the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The same was approved by the Central government on March 14.

The Collegium on March 6 recommended the appointment of Calcutta High Court Justice Harish Tandon as Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court.

The Central government cleared the same on March 21.

March 19

The Collegium on the said date recommended the appointment of eight judicial officers as judges of the Gujarat High Court.

The persons recommended were:

1. Liyakathussain Shamsuddin Pirzada,

2. Ramchandra Thakurdas Vachhani,

3. Jayesh Lakhanshibhai Odedra,

4. Pranav Maheshbhai Raval,

5. Mool Chand Tyagi,

6. Dipak Mansukhlal Vyas,

7. Utkarsh Thakorbhai Desai, and

8. Rohenkumar Kundanlal Chudawala

The recommendations are yet to be cleared by the Central government.

On the same date, the Collegium also recommended that three additional judges of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice Sumeet Goel, Justice Sudeepti Sharma and Justice Kirti Singh be made permanent judges.

The same was cleared by the Central government on March 26.

On March 19, the Collegium also recommended a one-year extension of term for three additional judges of the Chhattisgarh High Court - Justices Sachin Singh Rajput, Radhakishan Agrawal and Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal.

The recommendations were cleared by the government on March 26.

March 20

The Collegium on March 20 recommended the transfer of Orissa High Court judge Justice Arindam Sinha to the Allahabad High Court.

The Central government notified the same on March 28.

March 24

The Collegium on March 24 decided to repatriate Delhi High Court Justice Yashwant Varma back to his parent Allahabad High Court.

The move came after a fire at the judge's house allegedly led to the recovery of a huge pile of cash by the firefighters, triggering a huge controversy.

Interestingly, the decision was taken by the Collegium after holding two meetings - one on March 20 and another on March 24.

A fire at Justice Varma's house on the evening of March 14 had inadvertently led to the recovery of unaccounted cash by the fire fighters, as per Times of India.

The Collegium decision, which was opposed by the Allahabad bar, was cleared by the Central government on March 28.

March 25

The Collegium on the said date recommended the appointment of two advocates as the judges of Allahabad High Court.

The two advocates recommended were Amitabh Kumar Rai and Rajiv Lochan Shukla.

The recommendations are yet to be cleared by the Central government.

March 27

The Collegium on March 27 recommended the transfer of Delhi High Court Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma to the Calcutta High Court.

The same was met with protests by the bar at Kolkata.

Nevertheless, the Central government cleared the same on April 1.

Final numbers

To sum up, the Central government has withheld clearance for 13 persons recommended by the Collegium in March 2025 for appointment as judges to three different High Courts.

Three persons, Sandeep Taneja, Baljinder Singh Sandhu and Sheetal Mirdha, have not been cleared for Rajasthan High Court.

Eight names have not been cleared for the Gujarat High Court while two have not been cleared for the Allahabad High Court.

The eight persons who have not yet been cleared for Gujarat are Liyakathussain Shamsuddin Pirzada, Ramchandra Thakurdas Vachhani, Jayesh Lakhanshibhai Odedra, Pranav Maheshbhai Raval, Mool Chand Tyagi, Dipak Mansukhlal Vyas, Utkarsh Thakorbhai Desai and Rohenkumar Kundanlal Chudawala.

The two persons not cleared for Allahabad are Amitabh Kumar Rai and Rajiv Lochan Shukla.

Besides, four persons recommended by the Collegium for High Court judgeship in February are also yet to be cleared.

The four whose names have not been cleared are Ritesh Kumar and Anshul Raj to the Patna High Court and Md Talay Masood Siddiqui and Krishnaraj Thaker for the Calcutta High Court.

Interestingly, the government in March cleared the transfer of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh from Delhi to the Allahabad High Court.

The same was recommended by the Collegium in November 2024.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that liking a social media post does not amount to publishing or transmitting the post and thus will not attract Section 67 of the Information Technology (IT) Act [Imran Khan v State of UP and Another].

The provision criminalizes publishing or transmission of material that is "lascivious" or appeals to the "prurient interest" of a person.

Justice Saurabh Srivastava observed that a post or message can be said to be published when it is posted, and a post or message can be said to be transmitted when it is shared or retweeted.

"In the present case, it is alleged that there is material in the case diary showing that the applicant has liked the post of one Farhan Usman for unlawful assembly, but liking a post will not amount to publishing or transmitting the post, therefore, merely liking a post will not attract Section 67 I.T. Act.," the Court ruled.

The Court was dealing with a petition seeking the quashing of a case against a man named Imran Khan, who had liked a post by one Chaudhari Farhan Usman. Usman's post referred to a protest gathering that would be assembling near the collectorate to to hand over a memorandum to the President of India.

Khan was booked for "provocative messages on social media, which resulted in the assembly of about 600-700 persons belonging to the Muslim community for arranging procession without permission."

The same, as per the police, caused a serious threat to breach of peace. Besides invoking provisions of Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Uttar Pradesh police had also booked the accused Imran Khan under Section 67 of the IT Act.

His counsel told the Court that no such content was found on his Facebook account. However, the police said he had deleted the same but similar content was found on WhatsApp and other social media platforms.

From the material on record, the Court found that Khan had merely liked a message published by another person. The same will not attract Section 67 IT Act or any other criminal offence, it opined.

The Court also ruled that Section 67 of IT Act cannot be invoked in respect of provocative material.

"Even otherwise Section 67 of the I.T. Act is for the obscene material and not for provocative material. The words 'lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest' mean relating to sexual interest and desire, therefore, Section 67 I.T. Act does not prescribe any punishment for other provocative material."

Thus, the Court concluded that no offence was made out against Khan and quashed the case against him.

"Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and having perused the record, I do not find any material which could connect the applicant with any objectionable post, as there is no offensive post available in the Facebook and Whatsapp accounts of the applicant," the single judge reasoned in the judgment dated April 17.

Advocates Abhishek Ankur Chaurasia, and Diwan Saifullah Khan represented the petitioner.

[Read Order]

Three transfers and two retirements in March and April this year have reduced the working strength of the Delhi High Court to 36 judges, leaving 40 per cent of the positions vacant.

Two more judges – Justices Dharmesh Sharma and Shalinder Kaur – are scheduled to superannuate later this year. If no appointments are made by then, only 34 judges would be working in the High Court, which has a sanctioned strength of 60. 

Recent developments

The alleged discovery of a pile of cash at Justice Yashwant Varma’s house in March shook the Delhi High Court. On March 24, the Supreme Court Collegium ordered his repatriation to his parent High Court of Allahabad. The government also promptly cleared the transfer of the third senior-most judge.

Three days later, the Collegium ordered the transfer of Justice DK Sharma to Calcutta. While no reason was given for this transfer, the Bar bodies in Kolkata objected to the recommendation. However, Justice Sharma tried to dispel those concerns in his farewell address. He said he will “serve the institution to the best of my ability and intentions."

Another transfer out of the Delhi High Court came on March 28 when the Centre cleared the repatriation of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh to Allahabad. The Supreme Court Collegium had recommended the transfer in November. However, the government took four months to make up its mind. 

Earlier in March, Justices Rekha Palli and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta retired.

How are High Court judges appointed? 

Judges of the High Courts are appointed under Articles 217 and 224 of the Constitution of India and as per the procedure laid down in the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) prepared in 1998. 

The MoP was prepared following the Supreme Court judgment of October 6, 1993, the Second Judges case and the Third Judges case of October 28, 1998. 

According to the MoP, the initiation of the proposal for the appointment of High Court judges vests with the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court. The Chief Justice of the High Court is required to initiate the proposal to fill up of vacancy of a High Court Judge six months prior to the occurrence of vacancy. 

However, the Ministry of Law and Justice says that this timeline is often not adhered to by the High Courts. 

All the names recommended by High Court collegium are sent with the views of the government to the Supreme Court Collegium for advice. The Supreme Court collegium deliberates on the names and only those persons are appointed as judges who are recommended by the collegium of the apex court. 

How do Delhi High Court vacancies fare against other courts? 

As per data provided by the Ministry of Law and Justice till April 15, the Delhi High Court, with 40% vacancies, is worse than the national average. In the 25 High Courts as a whole, 357 of the 1,122 judge posts (31.8%) were vacant. 

Delhi ranked fourth worst among these High Courts. The Allahabad High Court topped the list, with nearly half of the judge’s posts lying vacant. This was followed by the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court and the Orissa High Court with 44% and 42%. The national capital shared the fourth spot with Jharkhand and Manipur for vacancies.

Data also shows that since 2014, a total of 51 judges have been appointed to the Delhi High Court. In three of those years (2015, 2020 and 2024), no appointments were made. The year 2022 proved to be the best, with a total of 17 appointments.

Even here, Delhi fared worse than the average. While its 60 judges account for 5.3% of the total number of High Court judges, the appointments since 2014 amount to only 4.7%. 

The stress on judges

Former Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice and Delhi High Court Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi told Bar & Bench that high vacancies choke the courts. 

“The workload increases. The available judges have to share their workload with whoever is available. It chokes the courts and the result is that the number of cases listed before a judge increases, and they are not able to devote time."

He said that frequent transfers lead to roster changes, putting the brakes on the disposal of cases. 

“A lot of part-heard matters can go to waste because you don’t take them up every day. And then the judge gets embroiled in his day-to-day work on their new roster."

Justice Sanghi added that Delhi High Court has never even come close to functioning at its full strength. 

“If I remember correctly, we have touched the figure of 48 at one point that was the highest ever,” he said.