In a noteworthy move toward transparency in the judicial appointments process, the Supreme Court of India has published an official document detailing the recommendations made by the Supreme Court Collegium during the tenure of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, who demits office tomorrow. The document, released on 21 November 2025, contains a comprehensive breakdown of all recommendations, their approval status, and the social background of the candidates.
This is the first such disclosure under CJI Gavai’s term and forms part of the transparency initiative that began during the tenure of former CJI Sanjiv Khanna, who introduced the practice of publicly listing the social profiles of Collegium-recommended candidates.
What the Newly Released Collegium Document Reveals
According to the official document:
- Total recommendations made to High Courts: 129
- Period covered: 14 May 2025 to present
- Recommendations approved by the Union Government: 93
- Pending / returned / under process: The document does not specify all stages but indicates that not all names have been cleared.
These recommendations pertain to appointments of judges to various High Courts across the country, which continue to face significant vacancies despite consistent efforts by the Collegium.
Social Representation in the Recommendations
One of the most important details published relates to the social background of the recommended candidates, reflecting the Supreme Court’s ongoing initiative to enhance diversity on the Bench.
Out of the 129 candidates:
- 11 candidates belong to OBC/Backward Classes
- 10 candidates are from Scheduled Castes
- 13 candidates are from minority communities
- 15 women were recommended
- 5 candidates are related to sitting or retired judges
The publication of such social data is crucial in assessing the judiciary’s progress toward inclusivity and ensuring that appointments reflect India’s complex social fabric.
The Transparency Initiative: Background
The practice of disclosing details of Collegium recommendations—including background, community category, and diversity indicators—was introduced during the tenure of CJI Sanjiv Khanna.
The intent behind this move is to:
- Increase public confidence in the judicial appointments process
- Provide clarity on the Collegium’s functioning
- Encourage accountability
- Showcase steps taken to ensure social and gender diversity at the Bench
CJI BR Gavai’s term continues this approach, signalling institutional commitment to openness.
Why This Disclosure Matters
Judicial appointments in India often face scrutiny for being opaque. The publication of such detailed data impacts the justice system in several ways:
1. Strengthening Public Trust
By listing approvals, pendency, and diversity metrics, the judiciary demonstrates its willingness to operate transparently.
2. Highlighting Gaps and Achievements
Numbers like 15 women out of 129 recommendations or 11 OBC candidates help evaluate whether meaningful diversity is being achieved.
3. Informing Policy & Reform Debates
With increasing discussions around reservation, representation, and judicial accessibility, such data provides essential empirical grounding.
4. Countering Misinformation
Rather than speculation about Collegium decisions, verified data builds a factual narrative.
Collegium Process Under CJI BR Gavai: A Brief Overview
CJI Gavai assumed office on 14 May 2025. During his term:
- The Collegium continued its pace of recommending judges amid rising High Court vacancies.
- Several High Courts faced acute shortages, making timely appointments essential.
- The Supreme Court held discussions with the Union Government regarding delays in processing recommendations.
- This period also witnessed significant administrative reforms, including digitisation and enhanced procedural uniformity.
The disclosure of recommendations comes at a crucial moment, as the system assesses the outgoing CJI’s contributions to transparency and institutional strengthening.
Representation of Women & Marginalised Groups
The data reveals mixed progress:
Women Candidates
Out of 129 recommendations, 15 were women—an improvement compared to historical numbers, but still far from gender parity.
Scheduled Castes & OBCs
- 10 SC candidates
- 11 OBC/Backward Class candidates
This marks a noticeable inclusion effort, though the judiciary remains predominantly upper-caste according to previous studies and reports.
Minority Community Candidates
13 candidates recommended belong to minority communities, aligning with the judiciary’s commitment to social representation.
Candidates with Judicial Lineage
5 candidates are related to sitting or retired judges, reflecting the entrenched legacy element within judicial appointments.
Context: Judicial Appointments and Executive Approval
The document also indicates that 93 out of 129 recommendations were approved by the Union Government. This approval rate sheds light on the often-discussed tension between the executive and judiciary regarding judicial appointments.
Under the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP):
- The Collegium recommends names
- The Union Government may raise objections or return names once
- The Collegium may reiterate, upon which the appointment becomes binding
Therefore, the gap between recommended and approved names suggests ongoing processing, reconsideration, or pendency at various stages.
Relationship to Broader Judicial Reforms
This disclosure is aligned with several recent efforts aimed at reforming judicial administration:
- Push for gender-balanced benches
- Calls for more representation from marginalised communities
- Digitisation and publication of Collegium resolutions
- Debates on revamping the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)
By quantifying recommendations, the Court provides a basis for evaluating whether these reforms are translating into actual diversity at higher judiciary levels.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s publication of detailed Collegium recommendations under CJI BR Gavai marks an important step in enhancing transparency in judicial appointments. With 129 recommendations, 93 approvals, and a clear breakdown of social categories, the data offers a rare inside look into the composition and diversity of prospective High Court judges.
This move not only reflects the continuing institutional shift toward openness, initiated during CJI Sanjiv Khanna’s tenure, but also serves as a critical record for policymakers, academicians, and the legal community.
As CJI BR Gavai prepares to retire, this disclosure stands out as one of the defining administrative acts of his tenure—reinforcing the judiciary’s commitment to diversity, accountability, and public trust.
Also Read
Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Rajasthan Phalodi Highway Accident: A Closer Look
