Why in News?

• A dispute has arisen between the Tamil Nadu Government and the Madras High Court Collegium over the non-inclusion of Justice J. Nisha Banu, a seniormost judge in judicial appointments, raising constitutional questions about the valid constitution of the Collegium.

Background: How High Court Appointments Work

• Under Article 217, appointments of High Court judges must be recommended by the High Court Collegium (Chief Justice + two seniormost judges).
• The State government may raise objections or seek clarification, but if the Collegium reiterates, the government must accept it.
• This procedure is codified in the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) issued after the Supreme Court’s Second and Third Judges Cases.
• Any deviation from this structure affects the legitimacy of the appointments process.

State’s Objection: Question Over Collegium Composition

• On November 9, 2025, the Madras High Court Collegium recommended six district judges for elevation.
• The State government did not question their merit but sought clarity about the Collegium’s composition.
• Justice J. Nisha Banu, the second seniormost judge, should have been part of the Collegium.
• Instead, Justice M.S. Ramesh, next in seniority, was included without explanation.

Why Justice Nisha Banu’s Position Matters

• Justice Nisha Banu was transferred to the Kerala High Court and placed ninth in seniority by a Union Law Ministry notification dated October 14, 2025.
• However, she has not taken charge in Kerala and continues to serve at the Madras High Court.
• Therefore, she remains a legitimate Collegium judge under the MoP and judicial precedents.
• The State government sought clarification on why she was excluded despite still being part of the High Court.

Collegium’s Action Without Clarification

• Instead of clarifying the issue, the Collegium proceeded to recommend nine more advocates for elevation.
• The State argues that the Collegium ignored a fundamental constitutional concern.
• The absence of any formal reasoning raises questions about transparency and procedural integrity.
• If the Collegium itself is improperly constituted, all its recommendations become potentially invalid.

Implications Going Forward

• The controversy affects not the candidates themselves but the legality of the procedure.
• If the Collegium was improperly constituted, all recommendations could be open to challenge.
• This creates tension between the State government and the judiciary, and raises systemic questions about judicial accountability.
• The episode underscores the need for a transparent and constitutionally robust judicial appointments framework.