Three High Court Chief Justices Appointed as Supreme Court Judges

What Happened

On 5 October 2026 the Union government notified the appointment of three sitting High Court Chief Justices as judges of the Supreme Court of India. The three appointees are Justice Sunita Agarwal, Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court, Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh, Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court. The notification followed the Supreme Court Collegium's recommendation of 28 September 2026, a gap of one week between recommendation and notification.

When & Where

The notification was issued on 5 October 2026 in New Delhi, the seat of the Supreme Court of India and of the Union government. The three judges were serving in Ahmedabad, New Delhi and Hyderabad respectively as Chief Justices of their High Courts. The Supreme Court of India sits in New Delhi and functions as the apex appellate court for the whole country, so appointments to it have nationwide effect rather than regional effect.

Who Is Involved

• Justice Sunita Agarwal — Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court, appointed as a Supreme Court judge; she enrolled as an advocate in 1990 and became an Allahabad High Court judge in 2011.
• Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya — Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, earlier Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, and Delhi Chief Justice from January 2025.
• Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh — Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court, elevated to the Jharkhand High Court in January 2012, with service in Jharkhand, Tripura and Telangana.
• Justice Surya Kant — Chief Justice of India, sworn in on 24 November 2025, and head of the Collegium that made the recommendation.
• Supreme Court Collegium — the body of the Chief Justice of India and the senior-most judges that recommends names for the Supreme Court.
• President of India — the constitutional authority who appoints Supreme Court judges by warrant.
• Union Ministry of Law and Justice — the ministry, through its Department of Justice, that processes and notifies such appointments.

How It Works

1. Collegium deliberation. The Chief Justice of India and the senior-most judges of the Supreme Court consider the names of High Court Chief Justices and senior judges. They weigh seniority, High Court representation and merit, and record a resolution. Here the resolution was passed on 28 September 2026.
2. Transmission to the government. The recommendation goes to the Union Ministry of Law and Justice, which processes it under the Memorandum of Procedure. The government may seek reconsideration, but if the Collegium reiterates a name, that reiteration is binding in practice.
3. Warrant of appointment. The President appoints the judge under Article 124 by warrant under his hand and seal. The appointment is therefore a constitutional act of the President, not an administrative order of a ministry.
4. Notification. The government notifies the appointment, which is the step reported on 5 October 2026. Notification makes the appointment public and operative for the purpose of administering the oath.
5. Oath of office. The appointee then makes and subscribes an oath before the President or a person appointed by the President, in the form set out in the Third Schedule, and only after the oath does the judge begin sitting.
6. Seniority placement. Once sworn in, a judge's seniority in the Supreme Court is fixed by the date of appointment to the Supreme Court, not by prior High Court seniority, which is why an officer junior in a High Court can rank senior in the Supreme Court.

Why It Matters

• Constitutional angle: The appointment directly applies Article 124 and the Collegium doctrine built on it, which is among the most heavily tested areas of Indian polity.
• Institutional angle: Filling vacancies at the apex court reduces pendency and lets more benches sit, which affects the pace of constitutional adjudication.
• Social angle: With Justice Agarwal's elevation the Supreme Court will have three sitting women judges, keeping the question of gender representation in the higher judiciary in focus.
• Federal angle: Elevating Chief Justices from the Gujarat, Delhi and Telangana High Courts affects regional representation on the apex bench, a factor the Collegium is expected to weigh.
• Policy angle: Every such appointment revives the unresolved debate between executive participation and judicial primacy in selecting judges.

Historical Background

The Supreme Court of India was inaugurated on 28 January 1950, replacing the Federal Court of India. Appointments were initially made by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, with the executive enjoying substantial influence. In the First Judges Case of 1981 the Supreme Court held that consultation did not mean concurrence. That position was reversed in the Second Judges Case of 1993, which established judicial primacy and created the Collegium. The Third Judges Case of 1998 settled the Collegium's composition and working. Parliament attempted to replace this arrangement through the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014, but the Supreme Court struck both down in 2015 as violating judicial independence. The October 2026 appointments therefore follow the Collegium route established in 1993 and refined in 1998.

Previous Related Events

• 2015: The Supreme Court struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, restoring the Collegium system.
• January 2025: Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya took charge as Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court after serving as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court.
• 24 November 2025: Justice Surya Kant was sworn in as Chief Justice of India, and thereafter headed the Collegium that recommended these three names.

Static GK Connection

• Article 124: Provides for the establishment and constitution of the Supreme Court, the appointment of its judges by the President, the requirement of consultation, and the retirement age of 65 years for a Supreme Court judge.
• Qualifications under Article 124(3): A person must be a citizen of India and must have been a High Court judge for at least five years, or an advocate of a High Court for at least ten years, or a distinguished jurist in the President's opinion.
• Articles 217 and 222: Article 217 governs the appointment of High Court judges and sets their retirement age at 62 years, while Article 222 allows the President to transfer a judge from one High Court to another.
• Article 50: A Directive Principle requiring the State to separate the judiciary from the executive in public services, which is the constitutional value underlying the appointments debate.
• First woman judge of the Supreme Court: Justice M. Fathima Beevi, appointed in 1989, was the first woman to be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of India.

India & World Comparison

India is unusual in that judges of its apex court are selected by a body of sitting judges rather than by the political executive or the legislature. In the United States, the President nominates and the Senate confirms Supreme Court justices, which makes the process openly political. In the United Kingdom, an independent Judicial Appointments Commission, including lay members, selects judges for the Supreme Court. South Africa uses a Judicial Service Commission with mixed membership. India's Collegium, created by the Second Judges Case of 1993 and refined by the Third Judges Case of 1998, gives the judiciary the final say, and the Supreme Court's 2015 decision striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission confirmed that position.

Future Impact

• The three appointees will take the oath of office before beginning to sit, after which bench composition at the apex court changes.
• Their elevation creates Chief Justice vacancies at the Gujarat, Delhi and Telangana High Courts, which the Collegium will have to fill in the coming months.
• The presence of three sitting women judges will keep gender representation in the higher judiciary on the reform agenda.
• The Memorandum of Procedure governing appointments remains unsettled, and each round of appointments renews pressure to finalise it.
• Any future attempt to revive a commission-based appointment mechanism will have to work around the 2015 judgment, so constitutional amendment proposals in this area will continue to be debated.

---

🔑 Key Points for Revision

• Appointment of three High Court Chief Justices as Supreme Court judges notified on 5 October 2026.
• Justice Sunita Agarwal — Chief Justice, Gujarat High Court.
• Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya — Chief Justice, Delhi High Court.
• Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh — Chief Justice, Telangana High Court.
• Collegium recommendation made on 28 September 2026.
• Supreme Court will have three sitting women judges after Justice Agarwal's elevation.
• Justice Agarwal enrolled as an advocate in 1990 and joined the Allahabad High Court bench in 2011.
• Justice Upadhyaya was Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court before Delhi, from January 2025.
• Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh joined the Jharkhand High Court bench in January 2012.
• Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant was sworn in on 24 November 2025.
• Supreme Court judges are appointed by the President under Article 124.
• Retirement age: Supreme Court judge 65 years, High Court judge 62 years under Article 217.
• The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 lets Parliament fix the number of judges.
• Collegium system: Second Judges Case 1993, Third Judges Case 1998; First Judges Case 1981 held consultation is not concurrence.
• The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 created the National Judicial Appointments Commission.
• The Supreme Court struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission in 2015.
• The Supreme Court of India was inaugurated on 28 January 1950.
• Justice M. Fathima Beevi was the first woman judge of the Supreme Court, appointed in 1989.

---

🧠 Concept Link (Static GK Deep Dive)

Core Concept: Appointment of Judges to the Higher Judiciary and the Collegium System

• Definition: The Collegium is a judge-led body headed by the Chief Justice of India that recommends appointments and transfers of judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
• Constitutional / Legal Basis: Article 124 covers the Supreme Court and Article 217 the High Courts; Article 222 covers transfers. The Collegium itself is not written into the text and is a judicial interpretation of the word "consultation".
• Scientific / Economic Principle: The underlying principle is institutional independence. If the authority that most often litigates before a court also picks its judges, the incentive structure threatens impartial adjudication, so selection is insulated from that authority.
• Link to this event: The 5 October 2026 notification is the executive's final step in a process begun by the Collegium's 28 September 2026 resolution, showing the division of roles in practice.
• Origin & History: Judicial primacy in appointments began with the Second Judges Case in 1993, after the First Judges Case of 1981 had favoured executive primacy.
• Key milestone 1: 1998 — the Third Judges Case settled the composition and procedure of the Collegium.
• Key milestone 2: 2015 — the Supreme Court struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act.
• Related Acts / Schemes / Treaties: Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956; 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014; National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014.
• Nodal Ministry / Body: The Department of Justice in the Ministry of Law and Justice processes appointments; the President makes them; the Collegium recommends them.
• India-specific relevance: India is the only major democracy where sitting judges have the decisive say in appointing their successors, which makes transparency of the Collegium a live Indian debate.
• Global comparison: The United States uses presidential nomination with Senate confirmation, and the United Kingdom uses an independent commission with lay members; India relies on a judge-only body.
• Data point: The Collegium's resolution of 28 September 2026 led to three appointments notified on 5 October 2026, a one-week interval between recommendation and notification.
• Common exam angle: Examiners ask which Article covers which court, the retirement ages, the sequence of the three Judges Cases, and the fate of the National Judicial Appointments Commission.
• Easy memory hook: "81 said consult, 93 said decide, 98 set the rules, 2015 kept them alive" — the four landmarks of judicial appointments.

---

❓ Practice MCQs

---

Q1. On which date did the Union government notify the appointment of three High Court Chief Justices as judges of the Supreme Court? [Easy]

A) 1 October 2026

B) 28 September 2026

C) 5 October 2026

D) 24 November 2026

Answer: C

Explanation: The notification was issued on 5 October 2026, a week after the Collegium resolution of 28 September 2026.

---

Q2. Justice Sunita Agarwal, appointed a judge of the Supreme Court, was serving as Chief Justice of which High Court? [Easy]

A) Telangana High Court

B) Delhi High Court

C) Gujarat High Court

D) Bombay High Court

Answer: C

Explanation: Justice Sunita Agarwal was Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court before her elevation.

---

Q3. On which date did the Supreme Court Collegium recommend the names of the three Chief Justices? [Moderate]

A) 5 October 2026

B) 30 September 2026

C) 1 October 2026

D) 28 September 2026

Answer: D

Explanation: The Collegium passed its resolution recommending the three names on 28 September 2026.

---

Q4. Which Article of the Constitution of India provides for the establishment and constitution of the Supreme Court and the appointment of its judges by the President? [Moderate]

A) Article 131

B) Article 124

C) Article 217

D) Article 214

Answer: B

Explanation: Article 124 covers the Supreme Court; Article 214 covers High Courts for States, Article 217 their judges' appointment, and Article 131 the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.

---

Q5. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh, appointed a judge of the Supreme Court, was serving as Chief Justice of which High Court? [Moderate]

A) Jharkhand High Court

B) Tripura High Court

C) Telangana High Court

D) Delhi High Court

Answer: C

Explanation: He was Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court, having earlier served in Jharkhand and Tripura.

---

Q6. The Collegium system of appointments to the higher judiciary took its present form mainly through which of the following? [Tricky]

A) The First Judges Case alone

B) The Second Judges Case and the Third Judges Case

C) The Kesavananda Bharati case

D) The Shankari Prasad case

Answer: B

Explanation: The Second Judges Case of 1993 established judicial primacy and the Third Judges Case of 1998 settled the Collegium's composition and procedure.

---

Q7. The National Judicial Appointments Commission was created by which Constitutional Amendment Act? [Tricky]

A) 97th Constitutional Amendment Act

B) 99th Constitutional Amendment Act

C) 101st Constitutional Amendment Act

D) 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act

Answer: B

Explanation: The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 created the Commission, and the Supreme Court struck it down in 2015.

---

Q8. Who heads the Supreme Court Collegium that recommended these three appointments? [Tricky]

A) Justice Surya Kant

B) Justice Sunita Agarwal

C) Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya

D) Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh

Answer: A

Explanation: Justice Surya Kant, sworn in as Chief Justice of India on 24 November 2025, heads the Collegium; the other three named are the appointees.

---

📜 Previous Year Question Style (PYQ)

---

PYQ 1:

Under which Article of the Constitution of India are the judges of the Supreme Court appointed by the President?

A) Article 217

B) Article 124

C) Article 222

D) Article 231

Answer: B

Explanation: Article 124 provides for the appointment of Supreme Court judges by the President; Article 217 deals with High Court judges and Article 222 with their transfer.

---

PYQ 2:

Consider the following statements:

1. Judges of the Supreme Court of India are appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal.

2. A judge of the Supreme Court of India holds office until attaining the age of 62 years.

3. The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, which created the National Judicial Appointments Commission, was struck down by the Supreme Court.

Which of the above statements is/are correct?

A) 1 only

B) 1 and 2 only

C) 1 and 3 only

D) All of the above

Answer: C

Explanation: Statements 1 and 3 are correct. Statement 2 is wrong because a Supreme Court judge retires at 65 years; 62 is the retirement age for a High Court judge.

---

PYQ 3:

Match the High Court with the Chief Justice appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court in October 2026:

1. Gujarat High Court

2. Delhi High Court

3. Telangana High Court

a. Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya

b. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh

c. Justice Sunita Agarwal

A) 1-a, 2-b, 3-c

B) 1-c, 2-a, 3-b

C) 1-b, 2-c, 3-a

D) 1-c, 2-b, 3-a

Answer: B

Explanation: Justice Sunita Agarwal headed the Gujarat High Court, Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya the Delhi High Court, and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh the Telangana High Court.

---

✍️ Mains Answer Pointers

Question 1 (150 words): Discuss the role of the Collegium in appointments to the Supreme Court, with reference to a recent round of appointments.

The Collegium is a judge-led body headed by the Chief Justice of India that recommends names for appointment to the Supreme Court, and the October 2026 round illustrates how it functions. The Collegium resolved on 28 September 2026 to recommend three sitting High Court Chief Justices, and the Union government notified their appointment on 5 October 2026.

Its role is therefore initiating and decisive rather than advisory. The Collegium weighs seniority, High Court representation and merit; the government processes the recommendation under the Memorandum of Procedure; and the President makes the appointment under Article 124. Judicial primacy here rests on the Second Judges Case of 1993 and the Third Judges Case of 1998.

The arrangement protects independence but is criticised for opaque reasoning and for uneven regional and gender representation. Publishing fuller reasons for each recommendation, and finalising the Memorandum of Procedure, would strengthen the system without surrendering judicial independence.

---

Question 2 (250 words): "Judicial independence and democratic accountability pull in opposite directions in the appointment of judges." Critically examine this statement in the light of India's experience with the Collegium and the National Judicial Appointments Commission.

Appointment of judges requires two values to be balanced at once: a judiciary free from executive pressure, and a selection process answerable to the public. India's experience shows how hard that balance is to strike.

Constitutionally, Article 124 provides for the President to appoint Supreme Court judges after consultation, and Article 217 does the same for High Courts. In the First Judges Case of 1981 the Court read consultation as falling short of concurrence, leaving the executive dominant. The Second Judges Case of 1993 reversed this and created the Collegium, and the Third Judges Case of 1998 fixed its composition and working method. Parliament's attempt to restore a mixed body through the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 was struck down in 2015 as a threat to judicial independence.

The October 2026 appointments show the settled process at work. A Collegium headed by Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant recommended three High Court Chief Justices on 28 September 2026, and the government notified the appointments on 5 October 2026, after which the President's warrant and the oath complete the process.

Each side of the argument has force. Judicial primacy has kept political screening of judges out of Indian practice, unlike systems built on legislative confirmation. Yet a body of serving judges choosing successors without published criteria sits uneasily with accountability, and Article 50's separation principle does not by itself answer who should select.

The reconciliation lies in procedure rather than in transferring power. A finalised Memorandum of Procedure, reasoned resolutions and a published vacancy timeline would deliver accountability while leaving the final word with the judiciary.

---

⚠️ Examiner Trap

• Trap 1: Students confuse Article 124 with Article 214 or 217. The correct fact is that Article 124 deals with the Supreme Court and the appointment of its judges, while Article 214 provides High Courts for States and Article 217 governs the appointment of High Court judges.
• Trap 2: A common wrong assumption is that a Collegium recommendation is itself the appointment. The reality is that the President appoints the judge by warrant under Article 124, the government notifies the appointment, and the judge then takes the oath before sitting.
• Trap 3: Many students miss the difference in retirement ages between the two levels of the higher judiciary. Always remember that a Supreme Court judge retires at 65 years while a High Court judge retires at 62 years.