Supreme Court Collegium Recommends New High Court Judges and Four Chief Justices

Three proposals from one meeting

The Supreme Court Collegium made three sets of judicial appointment recommendations at its meeting on October 26, 2026. One statement proposes four serving High Court judges for Chief Justice posts. Two others propose nine people for judgeships in the Madhya Pradesh and Bombay High Courts. The published statements are recommendations within the constitutional appointment process. They should not be read as notifications of appointment or as evidence that the recommended candidates have already assumed office.

The developments are material for court administration because Chief Justices lead their respective High Courts and new judges affect capacity to hear cases. The three statements were issued from the same meeting, so the proposals are presented together while identifying each destination court and candidate precisely.

Four proposed Chief Justices

The Collegium recommended Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak, presently of the Gujarat High Court, for appointment as Chief Justice of that court. The statement records his parent High Court as Gauhati. It recommended Justice P. Sam Koshy, presently of the Telangana High Court and with Chhattisgarh as his parent High Court, for the Delhi High Court Chief Justiceship.

Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty of the Calcutta High Court was recommended for the Telangana High Court Chief Justiceship. Justice Sudhir Singh of the Patna High Court was recommended for the Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justiceship. These are proposed destination posts. The statement does not itself say that the candidates have received warrants of appointment or taken oath, and no such later step is assumed here.

Madhya Pradesh and Bombay proposals

A separate statement approved a proposal to appoint seven advocates as judges of the Madhya Pradesh High Court: Dr. Vivek Sharan, Rajesh Kumar Shukla, Kanak Gaharwar, also known as Kanak Lata Singh, Bhakti Vyas, Shreyas Pandit, Mrinal Elker, also known as Mrinal Mazumdar, and Avinash Zargar. The names and alternate forms are reproduced from the statement so readers can distinguish the recommendations from candidates with similar names.

For the Bombay High Court, the Collegium approved a proposal for Ajay Sharma, a Judicial Member of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in Mumbai, and advocate Vaibhav Anant Sugdare. The first candidate’s current tribunal position and the second candidate’s profession are identified in the published statement. Neither is described there as already serving as a Bombay High Court judge.

The proposals cover different kinds of elevation: sitting judges proposed to lead High Courts, advocates proposed for a High Court bench, and a tribunal judicial member proposed for a High Court bench. Keeping these routes distinct avoids the impression that all thirteen recommendations concern the same kind of office.

Constitutional stage and next steps

Article 217 of the Constitution provides the framework for appointing High Court judges, including Chief Justices. The Collegium’s recommendation is an important stage, but the formal appointment follows the constitutionally prescribed process. Any transfer or appointment notification should be checked separately when issued. Until then, court users should refer to the candidates by their current offices and to the destination positions as proposed.

The published statements do not provide reasons for every recommendation, an effective date or an oath schedule. They also do not establish how many vacancies will remain after appointments, because that depends on later action and the courts’ sanctioned strengths. The immediate verified development is the Collegium’s decision to send these names forward.

For law students and practitioners, the update is a reminder that judicial administration often advances through several distinct instruments: recommendation statements, government notifications and oath ceremonies. A recommendation is newsworthy in its own right, but it does not change the bench roster by itself. The next concrete milestone is an official appointment notification for any of the proposed names.