Legal News
Justice PS Narasimha Judgement
Justice P.S. Narasimha Judgement | Supreme Court
Overview
The Supreme Court of India witnessed an important development on 2 November 2026 in a case concerning the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary. Supreme Court Justice P.S. Narasimha recused himself from hearing a petition concerning the delay in finalising the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) governing judicial appointments.
The petition was filed by the NGO Lok Prahari, seeking directions to the Central Government and the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to finalise the revised Memorandum of Procedure. It also raises concerns regarding transparency in the Collegium System and seeks consideration of bringing records of Collegium meetings within the scope of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The matter is significant from the perspectives of Judicial Independence, Transparency in Judicial Appointments and Accountability of the Collegium System.
What Is the Entire Matter About?
According to the petition filed before the Supreme Court, the process of revising the Memorandum of Procedure, which governs the appointment, elevation and transfer of judges, has remained pending for approximately 11 years.
In 2015, after the Supreme Court declared the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) unconstitutional, the need to improve and revise the existing Memorandum of Procedure for judicial appointments came into focus.
However, the petitioner contends that despite the passage of several years, the revised MoP has still not been finalised.
Who Filed the Petition?
- Petitioner: NGO Lok Prahari
- Subject: Finalisation of the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP)
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Constitutional Basis: Article 32
- Bench Listed for Hearing: Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
- Date of Hearing: 2 November 2026
The petition seeks to make the judicial appointment process more transparent, clear and accountable.
What Are the Main Prayers in the Petition?
The NGO Lok Prahari has raised the following major demands:
1. Finalisation of the Revised MoP
Directions should be issued to the Central Government and the Chief Justice of India to finalise the revised Memorandum of Procedure concerning judicial appointments within a specified timeframe.
2. Transparency in the Collegium System
Clear and publicly available criteria should be established for the appointment of judges.
3. Collegium Meeting Records and RTI
The issue of making minutes of Supreme Court and High Court Collegium meetings relating to judicial appointments accessible under the Right to Information Act, 2005, should be considered.
4. Greater Accountability in the Appointment Process
Merit, impartiality and objective criteria should be given importance in the selection of judges.
Important: These are the prayers made by the petitioner. The Supreme Court has not delivered a final decision accepting all these demands in this hearing.
Why Did Justice P.S. Narasimha Recuse Himself?
The matter was listed before a Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe.
At the beginning of the hearing, Justice P.S. Narasimha indicated that he could not hear the matter because he had earlier appeared on behalf of the Central Government as an Additional Solicitor General (ASG) in proceedings relating to the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
Considering his previous professional role in the NJAC proceedings, he recused himself from hearing the matter.
In judicial terminology, when a judge voluntarily withdraws from hearing a particular case, it is known as Recusal.
The purpose of recusal is to maintain judicial impartiality and avoid any potential conflict of interest or apprehension of bias.
What Is the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP)?
The Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) is a procedural framework containing guidelines governing the appointment, elevation and transfer of judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts of India.
In simple terms, the MoP helps determine the procedure through which candidates are considered and appointed to the higher judiciary.
Important Facts About MoP:
- The existing Memorandum of Procedure was prepared on 30 June 1999.
- It deals with the procedure for judicial appointments.
- Following the NJAC Judgment of 2015, the need for its improvement and revision was considered.
- On 16 December 2015, the Supreme Court issued important directions regarding supplementing and finalising the MoP.
What Is the Collegium System?
The Collegium System is a judicial mechanism developed in India for the appointment and transfer of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
This system evolved through various landmark judgments of the Supreme Court.
Composition of the Supreme Court Collegium:
The Supreme Court Collegium consists of:
- The Chief Justice of India (CJI).
- The four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
The High Court Collegium is also based on the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court and its senior judges.
An important point to remember is that the Collegium System is not directly mentioned in the Constitution of India. It evolved through judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court.
Important Landmark Judgments Related to the Collegium System
(A) First Judges Case – 1981
Case: S.P. Gupta v. Union of India
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the opinion of the Chief Justice of India was not final and binding in judicial appointments. The judgment gave greater importance to the role of the executive.
(B) Second Judges Case – 1993
Case: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India
Through this judgment, the Supreme Court reversed the approach adopted in the First Judges Case and established the primacy of the judiciary in judicial appointments.
This judgment is considered the starting point of the Collegium System.
(C) Third Judges Case – 1998
Case: Special Reference No. 1 of 1998
In this case, the Supreme Court clarified the composition and functioning of the Collegium System. It established the importance of the opinion of the CJI along with the four senior-most judges for appointments to the Supreme Court.
(D) Fourth Judges Case / NJAC Judgment – 2015
Case: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India
On 16 October 2015, the Supreme Court declared the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act unconstitutional.
As a result, the Collegium System continued as the operative mechanism for judicial appointments.
Important Supreme Court Order on MoP Dated 16 December 2015
Following the NJAC Judgment, the Supreme Court passed an important order on 16 December 2015.
Through this order, the Central Government was permitted to finalise the existing Memorandum of Procedure with necessary modifications in consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
The Supreme Court identified the following important areas for consideration while improving the MoP:
- Eligibility Criteria: Criteria relating to the eligibility of candidates for judicial appointments.
- Transparency: Ensuring transparency in the appointment process.
- Secretariat: Establishment of a secretariat for the Supreme Court and High Courts.
- Complaints Mechanism: A mechanism to deal with complaints against candidates under consideration for judicial appointments.
- Accountability: Other necessary provisions to ensure accountability in the appointment process.
The 2015 order forms an important part of the background to the present MoP controversy.
Constitutional Significance of the Case
The following provisions of the Constitution of India are important for understanding this matter:
| Article | Subject Matter |
|---|---|
| Article 124(2) | Appointment of Supreme Court judges |
| Article 217(1) | Appointment of High Court judges |
| Article 222 | Transfer of High Court judges |
| Article 32 | Right to constitutional remedies before the Supreme Court |
| Article 143 | Advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court |
The dispute is primarily connected with constitutional principles such as Judicial Independence, Separation of Powers, Transparency and Accountability.
Important Questions for Judiciary Examinations
This news is relevant for UP PCS-J, RJS, Bihar APO, MP ADPO and other State Judiciary examinations.
Question 1. Which judgment marked the beginning of the Collegium System?
Answer: Second Judges Case, 1993.
Question 2. In which year was the Third Judges Case delivered?
Answer: 1998.
Question 3. In which year was the NJAC declared unconstitutional?
Answer: 2015.
Question 4. On which date was the NJAC declared unconstitutional?
Answer: 16 October 2015.
Question 5. When was the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) originally prepared?
Answer: 30 June 1999.
Question 6. Which major areas were identified for improving the MoP in the order dated 16 December 2015?
Answer: Eligibility Criteria, Transparency, Secretariat, Complaints Mechanism and other necessary provisions.
Question 7. How many senior-most judges are included in the Supreme Court Collegium apart from the CJI?
Answer: Four.
Question 8. Article 124(2) deals with which subject?
Answer: Appointment of Supreme Court judges.
Question 9. Article 217(1) deals with which subject?
Answer: Appointment of High Court judges.
Question 10. What does the term Recusal mean?
Answer: Voluntary withdrawal of a judge from hearing a particular case.
Current Status: What Does This Development Indicate?
On 2 November 2026, Justice P.S. Narasimha recused himself from hearing the matter.
This does not mean that the Supreme Court has approved amendments to the MoP or directed that Collegium meeting records be brought within the scope of the RTI Act.
A final decision on the principal prayers made in the petition is still awaited.
Therefore, this development should be understood as an important event concerning transparency and accountability in the judicial appointment process.
Conclusion
The finalisation of the Memorandum of Procedure and the balance between transparency in the Collegium System and judicial independence remain important constitutional issues for the Indian judiciary.