Top Court Refuses to Hear Petition on Madras High Court Collegium Recommendations
Top court refuses to hear a writ petition that questioned the recommendations of the Madras High Court collegium, making it clear that such matters fall outside judicial review. The Supreme Court’s decision has once again highlighted the clear boundary between judicial scrutiny and administrative discretion within the higher judiciary.
The petition was brought before the apex court seeking intervention against recommendations made by the Madras High Court collegium in November 2025. The petitioner argued that the collegium was not properly constituted at the time the recommendations were made. However, the Supreme Court was firm in its view that the issue did not warrant examination on the judicial side.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, refused to entertain the plea. The court observed that the matter was not justiciable and should be addressed only through the administrative processes of the judiciary. With this, the petition was disposed of without going into the merits of the claims raised.
Top Court Refuses to Hear Collegium Matters Citing Administrative Authority
While explaining its stand, the Supreme Court stated that collegium-related decisions are handled within the internal administrative framework of the judiciary. The bench made it clear that courts cannot be approached to question such recommendations through writ petitions.
The petitioner had challenged the validity of the Madras High Court collegium’s recommendations, claiming that Justice Banu was excluded from the collegium prematurely. According to the plea, her transfer to another High Court had not been officially implemented at the time of the recommendations. On this basis, the petitioner argued that the collegium was improperly formed and that its decisions were constitutionally flawed.
Despite these claims, the apex court was unconvinced. It noted that decisions regarding the composition and functioning of the collegium system are within the domain of the Chief Justice of India and the collegium mechanism itself. The bench stated that such internal matters cannot be converted into legal disputes for adjudication.
The court also pointed out that allowing judicial challenges to collegium decisions would interfere with the independence of the judiciary’s appointment process. It emphasised that the collegium system functions through established conventions and internal checks, which are not meant to be examined through litigation.
Top Court Refuses to Hear Plea, Strengthening Collegium Independence
By declining to hear the petition, the Supreme Court reaffirmed a long-standing principle that administrative decisions related to judicial appointments are not open to judicial review. The court made it clear that dissatisfaction with collegium recommendations cannot form the basis of a writ petition.
Legal observers note that this decision reinforces the separation between judicial functions and administrative authority within the higher judiciary. The Supreme Court’s stance sends a strong message that the collegium system cannot be challenged through court proceedings unless there is a clear violation of constitutional provisions, which was not established in this case.
The bench also underlined that repeated challenges to collegium decisions could disrupt the functioning of High Courts and delay appointments. By refusing to entertain such petitions, the court aims to maintain stability and consistency in the judicial appointment process.
This ruling also aligns with earlier decisions where the Supreme Court has declined to intervene in collegium-related matters. Over the years, the apex court has consistently held that internal decisions of the judiciary should be respected to preserve institutional integrity. Also Read: Tribal Dept to Team Up With Global Chess Body to Reshape Learning in Schools in 2026
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the petition marks a clear reaffirmation of the collegium system’s administrative autonomy. By drawing firm limits on judicial intervention, the top court has reinforced the principle that internal judicial processes must remain free from litigation-driven challenges.
