After 4 months, Centre clears two judges for Delhi HC

After a delay of over four months, the Union government on Monday notified the appointment of advocates Ajay Digpaul and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar as judges of the Delhi high court, while the names of two other advocates — Shwetasree Majumdar and Tejas Karia — recommended by the Supreme Court collegium, remain pending.

Union law minister Arjun Ram Meghwal announced the appointments on X.

The approval of only two out of the four names recommended by the collegium has reignited concerns about the Centre’s selective approach to judicial appointments, which has frequently been cited as one of the main reasons for prolonged vacancies in high courts across the country.

With a sanctioned strength of 1,122 judges, high courts nationwide currently face a staggering 33% vacancy rate. Critics, including senior members of the judiciary, have warned that partial acceptance of recommendations disrupts timely judicial appointments, hampering the efficient functioning of constitutional courts.

In August 2024, the Supreme Court collegium recommended the names of Ajay Digpaul, Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, and Shwetasree Majumdar for appointment as judges to the Delhi high court, with a subsequent recommendation for Tejas Karia later that month. The collegium underscored their professional competence, integrity and specialised expertise as key reasons for their elevation.

While recommending Ajay Digpaul, the collegium had stated that he is a lawyer with over 31 years of experience in civil, criminal, constitutional, labour, company, service and commercial law, and has demonstrated substantial legal acumen. His appearances in 42 reported judgments highlighted his proficiency and suitability for the position.

Similarly, Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, with extensive practice reflected in 180 reported judgments, was recognised for his expertise and high professional competence. Shankar’s average annual professional income of ₹162.16 lakh over the past five years further underscored his standing in the legal community.

While the formal notification of their appointments is still awaited, people aware of the matter said, there is no clarity regarding the candidature of Majumdar and Karia. “It is not known whether the government has sought any clarification from the collegium regarding these two names,” they said.

A seasoned lawyer in intellectual property rights (IPR) and the founder of a law firm, Majumdar’s elevation was pitched by the collegium as an opportunity to enhance diversity and inclusivity on the bench. She was cited as a seasoned lawyer in intellectual property rights (IPR) and the founder of a law firm, with over 21 years of experience.

A domain expert in arbitration law, Karia has argued substantive issues before the Supreme Court and high courts, as well as arbitration tribunals. The collegium lauded his substantial practice and average net professional income of ₹709.69 lakh per annum, emphasising that his expertise would be a value addition to the high court bench.

The pending files of Majumdar and Karia exemplify what the judiciary has called a “troublesome pattern” of selective processing of recommendations.

The delay has exacerbated the issue of vacancies in high courts, affecting their ability to function efficiently. The Delhi high court, for instance, is currently short of 25 judges as against its sanctioned strength of 60 judges while grappling with a substantial backlog of cases, making the timely appointment of judges a pressing concern. The Delhi high court has a pendency of over 1.27 lakh cases, with 43% of cases pending for five years or more, according to data available at the national judicial data grid (NJDG).

While the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) of 1999 lays out the process for appointments, it does not bind the Centre to a timeline, enabling it to sit on recommendations indefinitely. This practice has led to repeated criticisms from the judiciary, which has emphasised the need for prompt decision-making to ensure the effective functioning of the courts.

In hearings between September and November 2023, the Supreme Court reproached the Centre for its delays, calling the selective processing of Collegium recommendations “troublesome.” The court stressed that such decisions undermine the trust required between the executive and the judiciary.

A bench, led by justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, had then warned that leaving recommendations in “limbo” was unacceptable and directed the government to either notify appointments or return recommendations with specific objections. However, this contempt case over delay in processing collegium’s recommendations has not come up for a hearing since December 2023 after justice Kaul retired.