How judges reach the Supreme Court: the collegium explained

Who decides that someone should become a Supreme Court judge? Senior judges, the Union government and the President each have a role at different stages. A collegium recommendation is one step towards an appointment. The constitutional rules, court decisions and appointment procedure explain what happens at each stage.

What Articles 124 and 217 say

Article 124(2) makes the President the appointing authority for Supreme Court judges. The President must consult judges whom the President considers necessary, and always the Chief Justice of India when appointing a judge other than the Chief Justice. The Article itself does not describe a five-member collegium. The Judges cases explain how consultation must work.

Article 217 deals with High Court appointments. Here too, the President appoints. The required consultations involve the Chief Justice of India, the Governor and, for a judge other than the High Court Chief Justice, that High Court's Chief Justice. The Governor takes part in consultation.

Read these provisions alongside the footnotes in the Legislative Department's Constitution compilation. The 2026 edition prints the invalidated National Judicial Appointments Commission changes, with footnotes recording their invalidation. Those footnotes are essential to understanding the rules in force.

Who can reach the Supreme Court?

Article 124(3) requires Indian citizenship and one of three alternative qualifications: at least five years as a High Court judge, at least ten years as a High Court advocate, or being a distinguished jurist in the President's opinion. The judicial or advocacy period may span two or more High Courts in succession.

An appointee can therefore qualify without having served as a High Court judge. Meeting these conditions makes someone eligible; selection is a separate step. High Court Chief Justices do not move up simply by seniority. The Third Judges case requires a positive reason for recommending a candidate, without demanding strong reasons for passing over each more senior judge.

How the Judges cases shaped the collegium

The Second Judges case, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, was decided in 1993. By seven votes to two, a nine-judge bench overruled the First Judges case on the relevant appointment principles. When the constitutional functionaries disagreed, it gave priority to the judiciary's view. The Chief Justice of India expressed that view after collective consultation.

This was a collective view, rather than the Chief Justice's personal preference. For Supreme Court appointments, the Chief Justice had to consider the views of the two seniormost Supreme Court judges.

The Third Judges case expanded this group. The President sought this advisory opinion under Article 143. A nine-judge bench answered unanimously on 28 October 1998. For recommending a Supreme Court judge, the Chief Justice must consult the four seniormost puisne judges. Puisne here means judges other than the Chief Justice. Together they ordinarily form the five-member collegium.

Why the consultation group matters

The group can sometimes exceed five. The Memorandum of Procedure includes the successor Chief Justice if that judge is outside the four seniormost judges consulted. Ordinarily, the successor is the seniormost puisne judge and is already among the four.

High Court appointments have different consultation groups. The High Court Chief Justice consults two senior colleagues when initiating a proposal. For a High Court appointment, once the proposal reaches the Supreme Court stage, the Chief Justice of India consults the two seniormost Supreme Court judges. The consultation group therefore depends on the kind of appointment.

The Third Judges case also requires the consulted judges' views to be recorded in writing and sent to the government with the Chief Justice's views. This requirement covers written records; it does not by itself require publication of every internal discussion or background report.

From recommendation to appointment

The Memorandum of Procedure, or MoP, translates the judicial decisions into appointment steps. The Supreme Court's 2015 judgment describes two government memoranda issued on 30 June 1999: one for Supreme Court appointments, the other for High Court appointments and transfers.

For a Supreme Court appointment, the Chief Justice of India initiates the proposal. The recommendation goes to the Union Law Minister, then to the Prime Minister, who advises the President. Both judicial consultation and executive action are part of the process.

The executive may return a recommendation with cogent reasons for reconsideration. Under the Second Judges case, the Chief Justice may consider those reasons and repeat the recommendation, explaining why it stands. If all the Supreme Court judges consulted agree, the appointment ought to be made as a matter of healthy convention. This sets no fixed appointment deadline.

The Third Judges case says a recommendation made without the required consultation is not binding on the government. Its authority depends on how the view was formed.

Why the NJAC did not replace it

The Constitution's Ninety-ninth Amendment of 2014 provided for a six-member National Judicial Appointments Commission, or NJAC. It comprised the Chief Justice of India, the next two senior Supreme Court judges, the Union Law Minister and two eminent persons.

On 16 October 2015, the Supreme Court declared both the amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 unconstitutional and void, by four votes to one. The majority's objection concerned judicial independence and the Constitution's basic structure. Justice Khehar's opinion found the judicial membership insufficient to preserve judicial primacy, and the Law Minister's membership incompatible with judicial independence and separation of powers.

Justice J. Chelameswar dissented, rejecting the view that judicial primacy was the only means of securing an independent and efficient judiciary. The order restored the earlier collegium system.

A procedure still open to improvement

The October 2015 order also listed a hearing on improving how the collegium worked. A subsequent order of 16 December 2015 called for supplementing the MoP in consultation with the collegium, addressing transparency, a secretariat, eligibility criteria and a complaint mechanism, as recorded by the Department of Justice.

To understand which procedure is in use, look beyond the reform directions. A Department of Justice parliamentary answer dated 12 March 2026 still described appointments as following the MoP linked to the Second and Third Judges cases.

How to read an appointment report

First identify the office involved, then the stage reached: recommendation, reconsideration or appointment. Becoming Chief Justice of India has its own convention. The seniormost Supreme Court judge considered fit should be appointed. The outgoing Chief Justice's recommendation is sought, with further consultation if fitness is in doubt.

When reading a report, check whether an eligible candidate has been selected, whether a recommendation has become an appointment, and whether a proposed reform is operating. These questions help you see exactly what has happened.