In December 2025 something big happened at the Madras High Court. It became the center of a discussion about the constitution. This happened after advocate A. Prem Kumar filed a Public Interest Litigation. The Public Interest Litigation is a petition that challenges the recommendations made by the High Court Collegium. The High Court Collegium wanted to appoint 13 judges. The petition says that the High Court Collegium did not follow the right procedures. The petition also says that the recommendations made by the High Court Collegium go against the constitution. The Public Interest Litigation is talking about the appointment of 13 judges and the problems, with the recommendations made by the High Court Collegium.
This case represents a rare legal challenge where the very composition of the body that selects judges is under fire.
The Procedural Conflict: The “Exclusion” of Justice Nisha Banu
The main legal reason for the Public Interest Litigation is based on a important argument about who makes up the Collegium. The Public Interest Litigation is centered around this idea about the Collegium. The argument is about the people in the Collegium and how they are chosen for the Collegium. This is a point, for the Public Interest Litigation and the Collegium.
The rule is that a High Court Collegium is made up of the Chief Justice and the two senior judges as stated in the Memorandum of Procedure. This procedure was established by the Supreme Court in what’re known as the “Three Judges Cases”. The High Court Collegium has to follow this rule. The Chief Justice and the two Senior most judges are the ones who make up this Collegium. They are the important people, in the High Court. The Memorandum of Procedure is what guides them. The Supreme Courts “Three Judges Cases” are what formed the basis of this rule.
The Allegation: Until December 19, 2025, Justice J. Nisha Banu was the second senior-most judge at the Madras High Court. Although she had been notified for transfer to the Kerala High Court in October, the petitioner argues she had not yet assumed charge there when the recommendations were finalized.
The Deviation: A group of judges, which includes Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice M.S. Ramesh suggested thirteen names. This group is called a Collegium and Justice M.S. Ramesh is the third Senior most judge, in this Collegium of judges. The Collegium made this suggestion of thirteen names.
The Constitutional Argument: The petitioner contends that the deliberate exclusion of Justice Nisha Banu—who was still legally a part of the Madras High Court at the time—renders the entire selection process void ab initio (legally void from the start).
Allegations of Favouritism and Political Bias
The problem with the list of candidates goes beyond a mistake. The Public Interest Litigation says some things about whether the candidates are really suitable, for the job. It claims that the list is unfair because it seems like some people got chosen just because they know the people.
Political Affiliations
The petition alleges that many of the 13 recommended advocates have “strong political affiliations,” specifically to the party ruling at the Centre or the former ruling party of the State. The petitioner argues that such appointments threaten the independence of the judiciary, which is part of the Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution.
Lack of Diversity
A big part of the challenge is about justice and Article 14 which is the Right, to Equality. The public interest lawsuit says:
The exclusion of communities is a problem. Communities like these have been left out for a long time. Members from communities have been consistently overlooked for years. This has been going on for years. It is not fair, to these communities. The exclusion of communities is something that needs to be talked about.
Neglect of the Trial Bar: The petitioner argues that the selection process heavily favors “Law Officers” (government counsel) while ignoring independent advocates and trial court lawyers who are the “backbone of the justice delivery system.”
The Plan: The person who started this case is trying to say that the way the Collegium is made up is a problem, with the process. If the Collegium was not put together correctly according to Article 217 then the people they recommend are not really legitimate no matter how good they are. The Collegium is what is important here. The Collegium is trying to make recommendations but the person who started this case is saying that the Collegium itself is not right.
Current Status and Demands
The Public Interest Litigation, filed under Case No. WP No. 50487/2025 Is praying the court for Interim Injunction under which An order restraining the Central Government from acting on the current list of recommendations.
Reconsideration: A direction to the Registrar (Judicial) to send the names back for a fresh, “properly constituted” Collegium to review.
