Context:

• High Court judge appointments are first recommended by the Collegium — the Chief Justice of the High Court and its two senior-most judges.
• The recommendation goes to the State government, which may raise objections or request clarifications.
• However, once the Collegium reiterates its recommendation or provides the required clarifications, the State government is obliged to accept the decision.
• In this context, this article highlights the growing constitutional concerns surrounding the Madras High Court Collegium’s recent recommendations, focusing on procedural irregularities, the exclusion of a senior judge, and the urgent need for transparency and systemic reform.

Clarification Sought on Composition of the Madras High Court Collegium

• The Madras High Court Collegium recommended six district judges for elevation in November 2025.
• While the State government raised no objections regarding the candidates’ merit, it sought clarification on a procedural issue — the constitution of the Collegium itself.
• The Case of Justice Nisha Banu
  • Justice J. Nisha Banu, elevated in 2016, is the second most senior judge of the Madras High Court and thus a rightful Collegium member.
  • However, a Supreme Court Collegium recommendation dated October 14, 2025 ordered her transfer to the Kerala High Court and placed her ninth in seniority there.
  • Despite this transfer order, she has not joined the Kerala High Court and continues to serve at Madras, making her de facto a Collegium judge.

State Government’s Concern: Why Was She Excluded?

• The State questioned why Justice Nisha Banu was excluded from the Collegium consultations and why Justice M.S. Ramesh, the next senior judge, was included instead.
• It sought clarification on:
  • The legal authority behind this substitution
  • Whether any Supreme Court directive or constitutional principle justified bypassing a senior judge
  • Whether the Collegium assumed that Justice Nisha Banu was no longer part of the Madras High Court
• The Collegium did not address these concerns and instead proceeded to recommend nine more advocates for additional vacancies.

Constitutional and Procedural Implications

• The Memorandum of Procedure clearly states that the Chief Justice and the two seniormost judges of the High Court must form the Collegium for recommending appointments.
• Ignoring a senior judge raises questions about constitutional validity, institutional integrity, and adherence to established norms.
• Core Issue
  • Whether intentionally or by oversight, the non-inclusion of Justice Nisha Banu in the Madras High Court Collegium contradicts the prescribed procedure.
  • The State government is therefore entitled to a clarification, as transparency and adherence to constitutional norms lie at the heart of judicial appointments.

When Procedural Lapses Threaten Constitutional Legitimacy

• Procedural norms in judicial appointments are not trivial technicalities but the very basis of the Collegium’s constitutional legitimacy.
• Since the Collegium system is built entirely on judicial precedent, it must strictly follow established procedures to maintain credibility.
• Excluding a judge who continues to hold administrative authority, without recorded reasons, and replacing them with another judge lacking jurisdictional basis, undermines the validity of the Collegium’s decisions.
• An improperly constituted Collegium risks rendering its recommendations void, creating a constitutional crisis rooted in uncertainty over who is authorised to decide.
• These concerns intensify long-standing criticisms of the Collegium system — including opacity, alleged nepotism, inadequate representation, political influence, and limited accountability.

Need for Transparency and Clarification

• The Madras High Court Collegium must explain, in law and procedure, why Justice Nisha Banu was excluded and Justice M.S. Ramesh included.
• Silence threatens structural judicial integrity and fuels speculation about motive.
• A judge’s ideological or personal background cannot justify deviation from constitutional norms.
• Impartiality, consultation, and adherence to justice must guide judicial decisions. Any departure from this principle weakens public trust.

Call for Supreme Court–Led Collegium Reforms

• The situation highlights the need for long-pending reforms:
  • Clear rules on Collegium composition
  • Published reasons for decisions
  • Mandatory disclosures to enhance transparency
• The Supreme Court must revisit the system to prevent ambiguity and inconsistency.

Core Issue: Legality of the Appointment Process

• The controversy is not about the capability of the six district judges or nine advocates recommended.
• The question is whether their elevation followed Article 217 and the Memorandum of Procedure, which requires recommendations from the Chief Justice and the two seniormost High Court judges.
• If the Collegium’s constitution itself is questionable, then its recommendations also lose validity.
• This creates a constitutional conflict between the judiciary and the State government — a crisis that can only be resolved through transparency, adherence to procedure, and systemic reform.