Jharkhand High Court is facing a silent unrest over the recommendations on the appointment of judges. The conflict focuses on the Collegium, comprising the Chief Justice and the two most senior judges of the High Court. According to individuals aware of the development, the Collegium has ignored certain names that were previously under active consideration for elevation. Lawyers assert that for more than eight years, not a single name from the local Bar (advocates practising at the High Court) has been successfully recommended for elevation to a High Court judge post.
Sources claim that the selection process is being driven by personal interest and nepotism, rather than merit, preventing the appointment of the most competent advocates. They maintain that this is the reason for the continuous failure to fill posts from the local Bar.
Facing an extreme shortage of judges and impending retirements in December 2025 and January 2026, the Collegium is reportedly sending names of seven Advocates to the Supreme Court for elevation, as mandated. However, sources contend that this new list was deliberately prepared to include candidates who are over the age of 55 and have little to no actual legal practice.
The purpose of recommending these aged and less-practising candidates, according to sources, is to ensure the Supreme Court rejects the list. This rejection would then stall the process until other favoured lawyers, who currently do not meet the eligibility criteria, become eligible for recommendation at a later date. Additionally, some of the candidates being recommended are reportedly close to a Collegium member, highlighting a pattern of internal politics and favouritism. This current unrest echoes past conflicts. Sources recall that when the previous Chief Justice recommended six lawyers for elevation, one Collegium member dissented.
The actual concern, according to the Bar, was the inclusion of an advocate who was not a regular Jharkhand High Court practitioner but was made to appear in a few cases just prior to the recommendation.
In addition, sources said the aforesaid Collegium member had in fact given his dissent for all six recommended names in the absence of the names of his favourites, and this time he has ensured, except for one all the previously recommended names have been removed in the current recommendation. It is noteworthy that the earlier panel had the names of eminent and able lawyers with impeccable integrity, whose age profile was excellent.
Lawyers argue that this “dirty politics” scuttled the elevation of several other very able advocates. These procedural issues are occurring while the court operates with a crippling shortage of judges.
The sanctioned strength for the Jharkhand High Court is 25 judges (20 Permanent and 5 Additional). The current working strength stands at just 15, leaving 10 crucial vacancies. This represents a 40 per cent shortfall, and the entire quota of five Additional Judges remains unfilled.
This persistent gap places immense pressure on the serving judges, exacerbating the backlog of cases and severely compromising the efficiency of the justice system in Jharkhand.
