CJI Surya Kant says team spirit is one factor he weighs when recommending judges for the Supreme Court
The Chief Justice of India named team work, alongside seniority, performance, regional representation and diversity, at a Bar Association felicitation on 4 November 2026. How Articles 124 and 217 and the Judges cases govern the choice.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said on 4 November 2026 that one factor he keeps in mind when recommending judges for elevation to the Supreme Court is how they will perform as team members. He was speaking at a Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) felicitation for two newly appointed judges.
Seniority, performance, regional representation and diversity are among the factors the Collegium weighs, he said. The Supreme Court, in his words, is "virtually now playing a T20 match with this much filing".
He described the rise in filings as a sign of growing public trust in the judiciary that also adds to pendency. Elevation to the Supreme Court, he said, begins a different kind of responsibility, with a change in the scale and reach of judicial work and not merely in position.
The felicitation at the Supreme Court
The function was held in the Main Auditorium of the Supreme Court's Administrative Buildings Complex. Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh took oath on 6 October. Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, who was elevated along with them, could not attend because of an unforeseen situation at home, and the CJI later said he had travelled to his hometown.
Justices Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale and Arun Palli were present, as was Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. SCBA President and Senior Advocate Pradeep Kumar Rai, Vice-President Rahul Kaushik and Secretary Pragya Baghel also attended.
The CJI called Justice Agarwal "a hardcore administrator" as well as a judge, citing her work on judicial infrastructure in Gujarat. Of Justice Singh, he recalled an old matter, pending for 10 to 12 years, that was decided while he was Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court.
On the Bench and the Bar, he said lawyers contribute to the development of law through independent perspectives, rigorous research and professional insight. "The bench in turn must remain open to persuasion and constructive criticism," he said.
Justice Singh said he came to Delhi about 42 years ago as a student and took his LLB at the University of Delhi. Recalling 22 years at the Bar, he said proceedings must not lose sight of the human stories behind cases.
Justice Agarwal, one of three women judges now serving in the Supreme Court, described her journey as that of a girl from a small town. She called the Allahabad High Court her high school and the Gujarat High Court her graduation and post-graduation, and said the Supreme Court felt like admission to a Ph.D. programme.
What the Constitution says about choosing judges
Article 124(2) provides that every Supreme Court judge is appointed by the President by warrant, after consultation with such Supreme Court and High Court judges as the President deems necessary. For any judge other than the Chief Justice, the CJI must always be consulted.
Article 124(3) fixes eligibility: a citizen who has been a High Court judge for five years, a High Court advocate for ten years, or, in the President's opinion, a distinguished jurist.
Article 217(1) requires the President to consult the CJI, the Governor and, for any judge other than a Chief Justice, the High Court Chief Justice. Article 217(2) asks for ten years as a judicial officer or as a High Court advocate.
Neither article uses the word Collegium, and neither lists qualities to be weighed. Justice B.N. Srikrishna notes, in the chapter on judicial independence in the Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, that Article 124(2) requires only consultation and that its reading has been the central question in the debate over judicial independence.
From consultation to the Collegium
D.D. Basu, in the chapter on the Supreme Court in Introduction to the Constitution of India, records that when A.N. Ray was made Chief Justice in 1973 three senior judges were superseded, and that the Bar protested.
In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, decided on 30 December 1981, Justice P.N. Bhagwati held that the Chief Justices and judges consulted were constitutional functionaries with a consultative role. The power of appointment, he held, rested with the Union government (Oxford Handbook, chapter on judicial independence).
A nine-judge bench overruled that view on 6 October 1993 in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India ((1993) 4 SCC 441), the Second Judges case. Justice J.S. Verma, for the majority, called appointment an integrated participatory consultative process for selecting the best and most suitable persons.
The CJI's opinion, formed with the views of the two senior-most Supreme Court judges, has primacy, the Court held. No appointment can be made to the Supreme Court or a High Court unless it conforms to that opinion.
The judgment also set out norms for the CJI to follow. They included inter se seniority among High Court judges, the legitimate expectation of suitable and equally meritorious judges to be considered in their turn, and proper representation of all sections of people from all parts of the country.
Merit was the outweighing consideration, the Court said, to select the best available for the apex court. It added that the norms confer no justiciable right on anyone.
The Third Judges case followed on a Presidential reference under Article 143, dated 23 July 1998. A nine-judge bench gave its opinion on 28 October 1998 (In re Special Reference No. 1 of 1998, (1998) 7 SCC 739).
The CJI must recommend Supreme Court judges in consultation with the four senior-most puisne judges, and High Court judges in consultation with the two senior-most.
The views of the judges consulted must be in writing and conveyed to the Government. A positive reason must be recorded for a recommendation, and strong cogent reasons need not be recorded for each senior judge passed over. A recommendation made without this process does not bind the Government of India.
The Memorandum of Procedure
After the two judgments, the Law Ministry framed a Memorandum of Procedure on 30 June 1999, with one memorandum for Supreme Court appointments and another for the High Courts. For High Court judges, the process begins with the High Court Chief Justice, who consults senior colleagues in writing before sending names to the Chief Minister.
The Union Law Minister then considers the papers, with an Intelligence Bureau check on integrity. The CJI forms an opinion with the Supreme Court Collegium, and the Prime Minister advises the President.
Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar read the memorandum in 2015 as dividing the work: the judiciary evaluates professional ability, and the political executive supplies details of character and antecedents. Justice Madan B. Lokur noted that collegium judges may also take views from outside the judiciary, and recalled Justice Verma saying he consulted senior lawyers on Supreme Court appointments.
The NJAC verdict of 2015
The Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 would have replaced the Collegium with a six-member commission. It would have comprised the CJI, two senior-most Supreme Court judges, the Union Law Minister and two eminent persons.
On 16 October 2015 a five-judge bench struck down both by a 4:1 majority in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India ((2016) 5 SCC 1). The Collegium system stood revived.
Justice Lokur wrote that the procedure under the Judges cases and the revised Memorandum needed fine tuning, and proposed a hearing on streamlining it. Justice Kurian Joseph wrote that the system lacked transparency, accountability and objectivity. Justice J. Chelameswar, dissenting, described the Collegium's proceedings as opaque.
Transparency and published standards
On 13 November 2019, in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, a five-judge bench considered how much of the Collegium's work the Right to Information Act, 2005 reaches. Justice Sanjiv Khanna drew a line between the Collegium's final resolutions and the inputs and data it examines.
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, concurring, wrote that the substantive standards borne in mind for judicial appointments should be formulated and placed in the public realm. His examples included how a lawyer's performance is evaluated, domain specialisation, pro bono work, and diversity in gender and in representation of minorities and the marginalised.
The 1993 judgment treats the absence of specific guidelines in Articles 124(2) and 217(1) as deliberate. It expects the constitutional functionaries to develop norms by convention in actual working.