Of the 221 names approved for high court judgeships by the Supreme Court Collegium over the past two and a half years, only eight candidates belong to Scheduled Castes and seven to Scheduled Tribes.
These numbers are as per data released by the Supreme Court, on Monday, May 5, as part of its efforts to enhance transparency in judicial appointments. The disclosures include caste, gender, minority representation, and familial relations with sitting or retired judges — marking an effort towards public accountability.
The top court disclosed comprehensive data on the candidates approved for high court judgeships by its Collegium from November 9, 2022, to May 5 this year.
During this period, High Court Collegiums across states recommended 406 candidates to the Supreme Court Collegium (SCC) for appointment as judges to various high courts across the country. This spans two distinct phases: 303 candidates were recommended during the tenure of former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud (November 9, 2022 to November 10, 2024), and 103 candidates during the tenure of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna (November 11, 2024 to May 5, 2025).
Of the 406 recommended by High Court Collegiums, 221 names have been approved by the SCC, while 185 are awaiting approval. Among the approved candidates, the names of 29 are currently pending before the Union government for approval.
In terms of social representation, 32 of the candidates approved by the SCC belong to Other Backward Classes (OBC), that is, 14.5%. Eight (3.6%) belong to Scheduled Castes (SC); seven (3.2%) to Scheduled Tribes (ST); and seven (3.2%)to Backward or Most Backward Classes.
Further, 28 (12.7%) of them are women, and 23 (10.4%) belong to minority communities.
The numbers show that 40.7% of the approved judges belong to the General category, while the remaining 59.3% come from other social categories.
Only two ST women judges (in Manipur HC and Gauhati HC) and one SC woman judge (in Andhra Pradesh HC) have been approved.
The data also revealed that 14 candidates across both phases were related to sitting or retired judges of the high courts or the Supreme Court.
Rajasthan High Court has the highest number of judges related to sitting or retired judges (three), followed by Allahabad, Chhattisgarh, and Patna High Courts with two each, and Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi, Gujarat, and Punjab and Haryana High Courts with one each.
The Supreme Court has also published the full chain of decision-making for each appointment, from the High Court Collegium’s recommendations to inputs from state and Union governments, to final approval by the SCC.
A press statement from the apex court said, “The proposals approved by the Collegium include detailed information on each candidate, such as the name, High Court, source of appointment (Bar or service), dates of recommendation and appointment, and whether the individual belongs to a special category such as SC, ST, OBC, minority, woman or is related to a sitting or retired judge.”
The court has also published the asset details of the sitting judges.
These measures are part of the top court’s ongoing efforts to improve transparency, accountability, and accessibility.
Several committees and judicial bodies have played a key role over the years in recommending transparency measures for the judiciary. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2005) and the National Legal Mission (2013) both advocated for increased transparency in judicial appointments and decisions.
The e-Committee of the Supreme Court, formed in 2004, was pivotal in digitising court processes, including case management and e-filing. The Law Commission (2009) also emphasised making judicial appointments public and transparent.
A significant development came in 2014 with the Lodha Committee, which was formed under Justice RM Lodha to address judicial reforms and improve transparency in judicial appointments. The committee made groundbreaking recommendations, including the public release of the Collegium's decisions, the publication of reasons for judicial appointments, and ensuring that the process followed clear, merit-based criteria.
The Lodha Committee’s recommendations have been instrumental in pushing the judiciary towards more openness, creating a more accountable and transparent process for judicial appointments.