Collegium Adopts Advance Transfer Policy For Chief Justices, Recommends Key High Court Appointments
Supreme Court Collegium meeting on February 26, 2026, where a new advance transfer policy for Chief Justices was adopted
The Supreme Court Collegium has adopted a new policy to ensure smoother leadership transitions in High Courts by transferring judges slated to become Chief Justices well in advance of the vacancy.
At its meeting held on February 26, 2026, the Collegium resolved that a judge proposed to take over as Chief Justice of a High Court may be transferred preferably two months before the post falls vacant. The objective is to enable the incoming Chief Justice to become conversant with the court’s administrative and judicial functioning before formally assuming office, thereby strengthening efficiency and continuity in the administration of justice.
"The Collegium has taken a policy decision that in order to strengthen the efficiency and quality of administration of justice, a Judge who is proposed to take over the High Court as its Chief Justice may be transferred well in advance, preferably two months before the vacancy arises, so that such recommendee in the meantime becomes well conversant with the affairs of that High Court and assumes charge of the office of Chief Justice, on the retirement of incumbent Chief Justice," the statement reads.
Acting under this newly adopted policy, the Collegium has recommended the appointment of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, currently serving as a Judge of the Kerala High Court (parent High Court: Madhya Pradesh), as Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. The recommendation follows the scheduled retirement of the incumbent Chief Justice on March 5, 2026.
In a related move, the Collegium has recommended the transfer of Justice Lisa Gill from the Punjab and Haryana High Court to the Andhra Pradesh High Court. She has been proposed for appointment as Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court with effect from the date the vacancy arises.
Interestingly, on February 23, the apex court had pulled up Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara over the way he mentioned a petition before the Supreme Court's bench concerning the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). As Nedumpara mentioned his petition before a bench, he stated, "Your Lordships have now constituted a Constitution Bench for Adani and Ambani, but the Registry hasn’t even looked at the NJAC petition, it is an issue that concerns the general public at large..".
Taking exception to this, a miffed CJI Surya Kant had responded, "I am warning you Mr. Nedumpara, be careful with what you say in my court. You have seen me in Chandigarh and now in Delhi. I am putting you on warning. Just because you have misbehaved with benches in the past, it doesn’t mean you can do the same in my court...".
Notably in 2024, the Supreme Court Registry had declined to register a writ petition filed by advocate Mathews J Nedumpara and others challenging validity of the Collegium system of appointment of judges in constitutional courts, stating the plea has filed to overreach the principles of settled law or with some ulterior motive.
Said plea was filed on the premise that the Collegium System of appointment of judges has resulted in the denial of equal opportunity for the petitioners and thousands of lawyers. The petitioners primarily sought mechanism in place of the Collegium and sought reconsideration on the striking down of the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014.
By a detailed order, SC Registrar (J-A) Puneet Sehgal had said, "In my opinion the prayers as have been sought for have already elaborately been covered in the judgment which is a judgment in rem dated 16th October, 2015. The present petition, in one manner or the other replicates the issues as have already been put to rest by detailed Judgment".
"In order to prevent needless waste of judicial time and energy, it is critical to ensure litigants do not overburden courts with the matters already stands adjudicated. Additionally, the repeated litigation of an already adjudicated matter is generally not in the public's best interest. The principle of res-judicata bars the invoking of provisions of law as sought by the petitioner. It appears that the present petition has been filed in order to over-reach the principles of settled law or with some ulterior motive," the order adds.