Supreme Court Collegium May 2026: 41 HC Judges, Article 217 Explained

The Supreme Court Collegium moved decisively through May 2026, clearing names for four High Courts in a single fortnight. On 18 May 2026, the collegium led by CJI Surya Kant approved 19 names — 9 judicial officers and 10 advocates — for the Madras High Court. Two weeks earlier, on 4 May 2026, the same collegium had recommended 13 candidates for the Punjab & Haryana and Andhra Pradesh High Courts, including four women. Between 11 and 12 May, nine more names were cleared for the Calcutta High Court. For PCS-J aspirants prepping current affairs alongside constitutional law, this is the single most testable cluster of the month.

What the collegium did in May 2026

Madras High Court: 19 names cleared on 18 May

The Supreme Court Collegium, headed by the Chief Justice of India, approved the appointment of 9 judicial officers and 10 advocates as judges of the Madras High Court on 18 May 2026. As of 1 May 2026, the Madras HC had a working strength of 52 against a sanctioned strength of 75 — 23 vacancies before this batch. The recommendation, reported in detail by Bar and Bench and LiveLaw, stems from four distinct proposals forwarded by the High Court collegium between November and December 2025. The file now travels to the Union Ministry of Law and Justice for processing before the President of India issues the warrant of appointment.

Punjab & Haryana and Andhra Pradesh: 13 names on 4 May

On 4 May 2026, the collegium cleared 13 names — a mix of advocates and judicial officers — for elevation to the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Four of the 13 recommended candidates were women, a notable continuation of the collegium’s stated push for gender representation on the bench.

Calcutta High Court: 9 advocates on 11 and 12 May

The collegium met on 11 and 12 May 2026 to clear 9 advocates for appointment as judges of the Calcutta High Court. The Calcutta HC currently has 42 working judges against a sanctioned strength of 72 — a vacancy of 30.

The constitutional framework PCS-J examiners will test

Article 217: Appointment of High Court judges

Per Article 217(1) of the Constitution of India, “every Judge of a High Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State, and, in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High Court.” The full text is available on the Supreme Court of India portal and the constitutional commentary on Article 217 is curated by the Department of Justice.

Article 217(2) sets the eligibility floor. A person is qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court only if they are a citizen of India and have either:

• Held a judicial office in the territory of India for at least ten years; or
• Been an advocate of a High Court or two or more such High Courts in succession for at least ten years.

This is why the May 2026 cohort is split into judicial officers (the first qualifying limb) and advocates (the second limb). A High Court judge holds office until completing 62 years (compared to 65 for Supreme Court judges under Article 124).

Article 222: Transfer of judges

The President may, after consultation with the CJI, transfer a Judge from one High Court to another. The 1998 Third Judges Case clarified that this consultation must include a plurality of senior judges, and the CJI’s recommendation has primacy.

The Collegium System: where it came from, why it stands

The text of Article 217 speaks only of “consultation” — not of judicial primacy. The collegium system is a judicial gloss on that text, built through three landmark rulings collectively called the Judges Cases:

• First Judges Case — S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981): Held that “consultation” did not mean “concurrence.” The executive had primacy in appointments.
• Second Judges Case — Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993): Reversed S.P. Gupta. “Consultation” now meant effective concurrence with the CJI, who in turn consults senior colleagues. The collegium was born.
• Third Judges Case — Re: Special Reference No. 1 of 1998: Expanded the collegium to a plurality. For Supreme Court appointments, the CJI consults the four senior-most judges; for High Court appointments, the CJI consults the two senior-most.

In 2014, Parliament enacted the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, replacing the collegium with a six-member body. The Supreme Court struck both down in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) — the Fourth Judges Case — by a 4:1 majority, holding that judicial independence is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and the NJAC compromised it. The collegium was restored.

The Memorandum of Procedure (MoP)

The Department of Justice under the Ministry of Law and Justice maintains the Memorandum of Procedure for Appointment of High Court Judges, which operationalises the collegium’s recommendations. Under the MoP:

• The High Court collegium (CJ of the HC + two senior-most judges) initiates a name.
• The state government is consulted; the Governor forwards the file to the Union Minister of Law and Justice.
• The Supreme Court Collegium (CJI + four senior-most SC judges) reviews and recommends.
• The Union Government processes the file and the President issues the warrant.
• The government may return a recommendation once, but if the collegium reiterates, the government is bound to appoint.

Standing vacancies and the time the file spends with the Union Government are the two recurring friction points in the system — and the reason a single fortnight in May 2026 produced 41 recommendations across four HCs.

Why this matters for PCS-J Mains and Viva

State judiciary mains papers across Bihar (BPSC), UP (UPPSC), Delhi (DJS), MP (MPCJ) and Rajasthan (RJS) routinely test constitutional law and current affairs in combination. Likely Mains framings:

• “Discuss the constitutional basis and evolution of the collegium system. Critically evaluate.”
• “Analyse the impact of NJAC’s striking-down on judicial independence.”
• “With reference to recent recommendations of the Supreme Court Collegium, examine the role of consultation under Article 217.”

Viva-voce panels — typically chaired by a sitting High Court judge — almost always probe a candidate’s familiarity with how their HC is presently constituted. Memorise the CJ’s name, the current working strength, and the most recent collegium recommendations relevant to the HC where you have applied. For Delhi judicial services aspirants, also study the recent Delhi Judicial Service Rules notification reproduced on the Delhi High Court website.

Test your understanding

The 10-question quiz below covers Article 217, the Judges Cases, the NJAC verdict, the May 2026 collegium events, and key procedural points likely to surface in PCS-J prelims, mains, and viva.

Frequently asked questions

Who heads the Supreme Court Collegium in May 2026?

Justice Surya Kant is the 53rd Chief Justice of India and heads the Supreme Court Collegium during the May 2026 wave of High Court recommendations. The collegium comprises the CJI and the four senior-most puisne judges of the Supreme Court.

Does the Union Government have a veto over collegium recommendations?

No. Under the Memorandum of Procedure, the government may return a name once with reasons. If the collegium reiterates, the government is constitutionally bound to process the appointment. The Second and Third Judges Cases firmly placed primacy of recommendation with the judiciary.

Why was the NJAC Act struck down?

In SCAORA v. Union of India (2015), a five-judge bench held by 4:1 majority that the NJAC compromised judicial independence — a basic-structure feature of the Constitution. The presence of the Union Law Minister and two “eminent persons” with a veto built into the structure was held to permit executive interference inconsistent with separation of powers.

How many High Court vacancies are pending across India as of May 2026?

Sanctioned strength across India’s 25 High Courts is approximately 1,114; working strength typically hovers around 750. Pending vacancies routinely cross 350 — which is why bulk recommendations in a single fortnight, as in May 2026, are constitutionally significant.

Master constitutional law for PCS-J

Authoritative sources

• Supreme Court of India — collegium resolutions and case law
• Department of Justice — Memorandum of Procedure
• Ministry of Law and Justice
• LiveLaw and Bar and Bench — court reportage
• Delhi High Court — DJS notifications and rules