Justice Narasimha Recuses From Plea Seeking To Finalise MoP For Judges' Appointments
Gursimran Kaur Bakshi
2 Nov 2026 11:40 AM IST
Justice Narasimha cited his appearance in the NJAC case as the Add Solicitor General.
Justice PS Narasimha of the Supreme Court today recused himself from hearing an Article 32 petition raising the delay of nearly 11 years in finalising the revised Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) governing the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
As per the brief issue, the petition states that subsequent to the 2015 judgment striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), a five-judge Constitution Bench had directed that the existing MoP could be supplemented and finalised by the Government of India in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. It identified important areas requiring improvement, including eligibility criteria for judicial appointments, transparency in the selection process, establishment of a permanent secretariat and a mechanism for dealing with complaints against prospective judges.
The petition has been filed by Lok Prahari, through its General Secretary, S.N. Shukla, IAS (Retd.), which states that the revised MoP has remained unfinalised for nearly 11 years despite repeated correspondence between the Government and the Supreme Court.
The matter was listed before a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe. At the outset, Justice Narasimha clarified that he would not be able to hear the matter as he had served as the Additional Solicitor General before the five-judge bench in the NJAC matter. He directed the matter to place placed before the Chief Justice of India for an appropriate order.
The petition raises serious concerns regarding the absence of clearly defined and publicly available criteria for evaluating and selecting candidates for appointment to the constitutional courts. It also questions the lack of transparency in the decision-making process, particularly the absence of recorded reasons for selecting certain candidates over others.
The petitioner has sought directions requiring the Chief Justice of India and the Union Government to complete the process of revising and finalising the MoP within a specified time. The petition further seeks consideration of measures aimed at making judicial appointments more objective, transparent and accountable.
Significantly, it also seeks a direction that the minutes of meetings of the Supreme Court and High Court Collegiums relating to the selection of judges be accessible under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The petitioner has contended that the selection of judges must be governed by objective and verifiable standards, consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution, while preserving judicial independence.
The case raises a fundamental constitutional question: Can a system responsible for selecting judges to the country's highest constitutional courts continue without a finalised framework of reforms contemplated by the Supreme Court itself nearly 11 years ago?
The petition seeks judicial intervention to ensure that the process of appointing judges is fair, transparent and based on merit and integrity. The proceedings may have significant implications for the future of the Collegium system, judicial accountability and public confidence in the administration of justice.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hedge appeared for the petitioner, filed through Advocate-on-Record Shashank Singh
