Expressing frustration at the Central government for dragging its feet for over a year on appointments of judges to High Courts especially after their approval by the Supreme Court collegium, Advocate Shwetasree Majumdar, has officially withdrawn her consent for appointment as a judge of the Delhi High Court The advocate however refrained from sharing any specific reasons for retracting her consent.

The Supreme Court Collegium, then headed by former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, had recommended Majumdar’s name for elevation on August 21, 2024, alongside two other advocates—Ajay Digpaul and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar. However, while the Centre cleared the names of Digpaul and Shankar on January 6, 2025, Majumdar’s name did not make it to the list. Explanation for the delay was also not given.

104643189104. Shwetasree Majumdar is an alumna of the Law School of India University, Bangalore, and practices on the original side of the Delhi High Court ,her forte being intellectual property rights. She has served as Amicus Curiae in several matters and was part of the six-member committee that drafted the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. In addition, she serves as a Panelist for the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

Sources familiar with the system mention that this is not an isolated instance. The Centre’s repeated delays in acting on Collegium recommendations have sparked concern in the judiciary. The prominent case of Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal, is not lost from memory they quote.

Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal’s name was first proposed for Delhi High Court judgeship and was reaffirmed by the Collegium in January 2023, after dismissing objections related to his sexual orientation. As per settled constitutional law principle, a reiterated recommendation by the Collegium is binding on the Centre, yet no progress was made on Kirpal’s appointment.

Similar was the case of Senior Advocate Adithya Sondhi’s case. Frustrated with the Centre’s inordinate inaction on his initial recommendation and subsequent reiteration he finally withdrew his consent for judgeship in February 2022.

Further, in a resolution passed in March 2023, the Supreme Court Collegium voiced its displeasure over the selective withholding of names by the Union Government. The resolution cited the case of John Sathyan, whose appointment to the Madras High Court was delayed despite a reiteration, while others recommended later were approved. The Apex court’s vexation on this issue was evident from their statement ,

“The names which have been recommended earlier in point of time including the reiterated names ought not to be withheld or overlooked as this disturbs their seniority whereas those recommended later steal march on them. Loss of seniority of candidates recommended earlier in point of time has been noted by the Collegium and is a matter of grave concern.”

The court’s serious concern on the issue was also highlighted while adjudicating a petition about the delay in judicial appointments. Observed the court, “In recommendations made recently, selective appointments have been made. This is also a matter of concern. If some appointments are made, while others are not, the inter-se seniority is disturbed. This is hardly conducive to persuading successful lawyers to join the bench.”

Source : News