Supreme Court Collegium Explained: Four Judges Recommended as Chief Justices of Delhi, Gujarat, Telangana and Uttarakhand
Key Takeaways
- On 26 October 2026, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended four judges as Chief Justices: Pathak for Gujarat, Koshy for Delhi, Chakraborty for Telangana and Singh for Uttarakhand.
- A Collegium recommendation is not an appointment; the Union Government must process it and the President must issue the warrant of appointment.
- Delhi, Gujarat and Telangana already had acting Chief Justices under Article 223 after their previous Chief Justices moved to the Supreme Court.
- In the same round, the Collegium cleared nine more judges: two for the Bombay High Court and seven advocates for the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
- High Court judges are appointed under Article 217 of the Constitution, and the Collegium system dates to the Second Judges Case (1993) and the Third Judges Case (1998).
What happened on 26 October 2026
The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended four sitting High Court judges for appointment as Chief Justices of four High Courts. The recommendations were made in resolutions dated 26 October 2026, and were reported on 27 October 2026 by several legal news outlets, including The Hindu BusinessLine, SCC Online, Verdictum and LawChakra, all citing the Collegium's statements.
The four recommendations are for the High Courts of Gujarat, Delhi, Telangana and Uttarakhand. A recommendation by the Collegium is not itself an appointment. It now goes to the Union Government for processing, and appointment, if made, is by the President of India. That distinction matters, because headlines that say a judge "has become" a Chief Justice on the strength of a Collegium resolution alone would be premature.
The four names, court by court
The Collegium's four picks, as reported consistently across the sources, are as follows.
Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak, whose parent High Court is Gauhati and who is presently serving in the Gujarat High Court, has been recommended for appointment as Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court. In his case, the recommendation would make him the permanent head of the court where he already sits.
Justice P. Sam Koshy, whose parent High Court is Chhattisgarh and who is presently serving in the Telangana High Court, has been recommended for appointment as Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. This is a move to a different court from the one where he currently serves.
Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty, presently serving in the Calcutta High Court, has been recommended for appointment as Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court.
Justice Sudhir Singh, presently serving in the Patna High Court, has been recommended for appointment as Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court. SCC Online's listing uses the older name "Uttaranchal" for this court; the court is now generally referred to as the Uttarakhand High Court.
Three of the four recommendations therefore involve a judge heading a court other than the one where they currently sit, while Justice Pathak's recommendation is for the court where he already serves. That mix of transfer and in-place elevation is normal in Chief Justice appointments, where seniority, the need to fill a vacancy, and the Collegium's assessment of suitability all play a part.
Why three courts already had acting Chief Justices
LawChakra's report notes an important piece of context: earlier in October 2026, the Union Government had notified acting Chief Justices for three of these courts under Article 223 of the Constitution, after their previous Chief Justices moved to the Supreme Court.
Under that account, Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre took over as acting Chief Justice in Delhi after Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak took over in Gujarat after Justice Sunita Agarwal, and Justice P. Sam Koshy took over in Telangana after Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh. Article 223 provides for the discharge of the duties of a Chief Justice when the office is vacant or the Chief Justice is unable to perform those duties, so an acting arrangement keeps the court functioning while a permanent appointment is processed.
That context also explains why two of the names in the 26 October recommendations will look familiar to readers who followed the acting appointments: Justices Pathak and Koshy were already holding acting charge in Gujarat and Telangana respectively, and are now recommended for permanent Chief Justiceships — Pathak in Gujarat itself, and Koshy in Delhi.
Nine more judges cleared in the same round
The 26 October round was not limited to the four Chief Justice recommendations. In separate resolutions, the Collegium also cleared nine further appointments as High Court judges.
For the Bombay High Court, it approved the proposal to appoint Ajay Sharma, Judicial Member of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Mumbai, and advocate Vaibhav Anant Sugdare, as judges.
For the Madhya Pradesh High Court, it approved the proposal for the appointment of seven advocates as judges: Dr. Vivek Sharan, Rajesh Kumar Shukla, Kanak Gaharwar (also referred to as Kanak Lata Singh), Bhakti Vyas, Shreyas Pandit, Mrinal Elker (also referred to as Mrinal Mazumdar), and Avinash Zargar.
Taken together, the round therefore covers thirteen names: four Chief Justice recommendations and nine judge appointments. The judge appointments, like the Chief Justice recommendations, still require government processing and presidential appointment before they take effect.
How a High Court Chief Justice is appointed
High Court judges, including Chief Justices, are appointed under Article 217 of the Constitution, with Article 224 covering additional and acting judges. The Constitution does not lay down a separate procedure for appointing a Chief Justice; the word "Judge" in the appointment provisions includes the Chief Justice.
In practice, the process runs through the Collegium system. The Supreme Court Collegium, headed by the Chief Justice of India, recommends names. The Union Government, through the Law Ministry, processes the recommendation and places it before the President, who issues the warrant of appointment. If the government has reservations, it can return a recommendation for reconsideration; under the established practice, if the Collegium reiterates its recommendation, the government is expected to proceed with it. None of that later stage has happened yet for these four names, which is why they should still be described as "recommended", not "appointed".
The system itself has a long history. In the Second Judges Case in 1993, the Supreme Court gave the judiciary primacy in appointments, and in the Third Judges Case, a Presidential Reference decided in 1998, the Collegium was elaborated further and the Memorandum of Procedure of 1998 was drafted. Parliament tried to replace the Collegium with the National Judicial Appointments Commission through the Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, 2014, but the Supreme Court struck that system down on 16 October 2015, and the Collegium system returned. Debates about transparency, seniority and the balance between the judiciary and the executive in appointments have continued ever since, and every major round of recommendations revives them.
What this changes, and what it does not
For the four courts concerned, a permanent Chief Justice matters more than a title change. The Chief Justice heads the court's administration, constitutes benches, allocates cases, and leads the court in its relations with the state government and the Supreme Court Collegium on future judicial appointments. A court run for long by an acting Chief Justice can function, but major administrative decisions and long-term planning are easier with a permanent head in place.
For litigants, however, the immediate effect is limited. A change of Chief Justice does not change the law, reopen decided cases, or alter the roster of cases overnight. Pending cases continue before the benches assigned to them, and the new Chief Justice, once appointed, will take over the administrative role while also sitting on benches as a judge.
For the wider judiciary, the round is also a reminder of how interconnected appointments are. A vacancy in one court is often filled by a judge from another, which can in turn create a vacancy or an acting arrangement elsewhere. The Delhi, Gujarat and Telangana acting arrangements earlier in October, followed by these recommendations, illustrate that chain: elevations to the Supreme Court created vacancies, acting Chief Justices filled the gap, and the Collegium has now proposed permanent successors.
What to watch next
The next steps are procedural, but they are the ones that will decide when, or whether, these recommendations become appointments. Readers should watch for a notification from the Union Law Ministry or the President's warrant of appointment for each of the four names, rather than treating the Collegium resolution as the final step.
Three things are worth tracking separately. First, whether all four recommendations are accepted together or whether any name is returned for reconsideration. Second, whether the Bombay and Madhya Pradesh judge appointments are notified in the same batch. Third, whether the acting arrangements in Delhi, Gujarat and Telangana end as soon as the new Chief Justices take oath, which is the normal pattern once a permanent appointment is made.
Until those notifications appear, the accurate description remains the same: on 26 October 2026, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended four judges — Pathak for Gujarat, Koshy for Delhi, Chakraborty for Telangana and Singh for Uttarakhand — as Chief Justices, and cleared nine more names as High Court judges. The appointments themselves are still to come.
Conclusion
This is a routine but consequential piece of judicial administration. The Collegium has chosen four experienced High Court judges to lead four important High Courts, and has also cleared nine new judges for Bombay and Madhya Pradesh. The recommendations are well documented and consistent across legal reporting, but they are recommendations, not appointments. The story will be complete only when the government notifies the appointments and the four judges take oath as Chief Justices of their respective courts.