Supreme Court Collegium Recommends 14 Advocates for Bombay High Court in Major Move to Fill Vacancies

On 19 August 2025, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the elevation of 14 advocates to the Bombay High Court, marking one of the largest single batches of proposed appointments in recent memory. Issued through two separate resolutions—one recommending eight advocates, the other six—the move is designed to address the chronic shortage of judges in India’s busiest High Court.

The Collegium’s official press note, made public the same day, emphasised that these candidates were selected after a comprehensive evaluation of merit, integrity, and domain expertise. Once cleared by the Central Government and formally appointed by the President of India under Article 217 of the Constitution, the new judges will significantly bolster the Court’s bench strength and capacity.

The Collegium’s Twin Resolutions: A Closer Look

The first resolution, passed on 19 August 2025, recommended eight advocates, while the second resolution added six more names to the list. Collectively, the group includes:

• Senior advocates with long-standing reputations in constitutional, commercial, and criminal law practice.

• Mid-career practitioners with specialised expertise in areas such as arbitration, insolvency, and intellectual property.

• Lawyers from diverse socio-economic and regional backgrounds across Maharashtra and Goa (the Bombay High Court’s jurisdiction).

While the Collegium does not publish detailed reasons for each recommendation, the public disclosure of names and basic credentials follows its policy of greater transparency in judicial appointments, first formalised in the resolutions of 2017.

Why This Round of Appointments Matters for Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court, with principal seat in Mumbai and benches in Aurangabad, Nagpur, and Goa, has long grappled with severe judicial vacancies.

• As of July 2025, the sanctioned strength of the Court stood at 94 judges, while the working strength hovered at around 60.

• This vacancy rate of nearly 35–40% has directly contributed to mounting arrears: over 5.7 lakh pending cases, according to the National Judicial Data Grid.

• Case disposal timelines—especially in commercial disputes, company law appeals, and writ petitions against government action—have been significantly affected.

In this backdrop, the Collegium’s recommendation of 14 new judges at once represents a rare and deliberate attempt to restore institutional capacity. If appointments are processed expeditiously by the executive, Bombay High Court could see its largest single-year expansion in over a decade.

Constitutional Framework: Appointment of High Court Judges

Under Article 217(1) of the Constitution, every High Court judge is appointed by the President of India “after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State, and in the case of appointment of a judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned.”

Since the Second Judges Case (1993) and the Third Judges Case (1998), this “consultation” has been interpreted as binding concurrence of the Supreme Court Collegium, giving it primacy in judicial appointments. The Collegium system, though often criticized for lack of transparency, remains the operative framework after the Ninety-Ninth Constitutional Amendment and the NJAC Act, 2014 were struck down in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India (2015).

The publication of detailed press notes, as in the present instance, reflects the judiciary’s ongoing effort to balance institutional independence with demands for accountability and transparency.

Evaluating the Collegium’s Criteria

Though the Collegium’s resolutions do not disclose granular reasons for each recommendation, past practice suggests that professional standing, integrity, and regional representation are central considerations.

1. Professional Merit: Advocates with long-standing practice before the Bombay High Court, proven trial experience, or recognised expertise in commercial law are often preferred.

2. Diversity of Expertise: The Court’s docket spans from constitutional writs to admiralty jurisdiction; hence, varied professional backgrounds ensure a well-rounded bench.

3. Representation: Geographic balance between Mumbai, Nagpur, Aurangabad, and Goa practitioners helps ensure litigants across Maharashtra feel represented.

4. Integrity and Reputation: Background checks by intelligence agencies and consultation with peers help vet candidates’ suitability.

The inclusion of senior advocates as well as mid-level practitioners in this round reflects a balanced approach—seniority ensures gravitas, while mid-career appointees offer longevity and adaptability.

Implications for Case Law and Jurisprudence in Maharashtra

The impact of this round of appointments will extend beyond numbers. The Bombay High Court has historically been a jurisprudential leader, shaping doctrines in corporate governance, intellectual property, arbitration, and constitutional law. Some likely implications include:

• Commercial Law: With Mumbai being India’s financial hub, an infusion of judges with commercial practice backgrounds may accelerate resolution of company law, securities, and insolvency disputes.

• Arbitration & Infrastructure: The Court, often the seat for international commercial arbitrations, may see quicker disposal of Section 34 challenges and enforcement petitions under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

• Constitutional Litigation: Challenges to state laws, reservations, and executive orders in Maharashtra will now be decided by a larger and potentially more diverse bench.

• Family & Criminal Jurisdiction: The inclusion of experienced criminal law practitioners may strengthen adjudication of serious offences, bail jurisprudence, and human rights cases.

Given that High Court decisions set persuasive precedents for subordinate courts and often shape the law until Supreme Court intervention, the doctrinal influence of these new judges will be substantial.

Comparative Perspective: Judicial Appointments Elsewhere

Comparatively, the United States follows an overtly political process with Senate confirmation of judicial nominees, while the United Kingdom’s Judicial Appointments Commission applies a more bureaucratic, merit-based selection. India’s Collegium system, while unique, continues to walk the tightrope between judicial independence and democratic accountability.

In this context, the public disclosure of names and reasons in Collegium resolutions is a step toward a more transparent model, aligning India’s process closer to global best practices without undermining judicial primacy.

A Strategic Strengthening of the Bombay High Court

The Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendation of 14 advocates for elevation to the Bombay High Court bench represents more than routine judicial housekeeping. It is a structural intervention aimed at restoring institutional capacity in one of India’s most overburdened courts.

As these names move through the formal appointment process, the legal fraternity will keenly watch how this new cohort shapes the future of the Bombay High Court—and by extension, Indian jurisprudence.