Delay in the Memorandum of Procedure for Judges' Appointments: A PIL, a Recusal and What the MoP Is
On 2 November 2026, Supreme Court judge Justice P.S. Narasimha recused himself (stepped away) from hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) about the delay in finalising a revised Memorandum of Procedure (MoP).
The MoP is the set of documents that lays down how judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed, promoted (elevated) and transferred.
The PIL was filed by Lok Prahari, a non-governmental organisation (NGO). It was listed before a bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe.
Justice Narasimha stepped away because he had earlier appeared as Additional Solicitor General (a senior lawyer for the Union government) in the Supreme Court case on the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
The petition says the revised MoP has stayed unfinished for nearly 11 years, even after many letters between the Union government and the Supreme Court.
It also says there are no clear, public criteria for judging and selecting candidates for the constitutional courts (the Supreme Court and High Courts). The case will now go before a bench without Justice Narasimha.
The Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for Judicial Appointments
The Memorandum of Procedure, or MoP, is the rule book that tells everyone, step by step, how a judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court is chosen, appointed and transferred. It is not a law passed by Parliament. It is a document framed by the Union government together with the judiciary. It fills the gap between the few lines the Constitution says about appointments and the many practical steps needed to actually appoint a judge.
The PIL asks the Supreme Court to push for a final revised MoP, which has been pending for nearly 11 years since the NJAC judgment. It also asks for clear, public criteria for selecting judges. Because the MoP decides how judges themselves are chosen, the case sits at the centre of the long debate between the judiciary and the government over appointments.
Collegium System and Judicial Appointments
The collegium system is the way judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are selected in India. A small group of the senior-most judges, called the collegium, picks names and sends them to the government, and the President formally appoints them. The system is not written in the Constitution. It was created by the Supreme Court through the Judges Cases.
The revised MoP was meant to fix gaps in the collegium system after the NJAC judgment. The PIL's demand for clear, public selection criteria is one of the main criticisms of the collegium: that its choices are made without published reasons.
Judicial Recusal: The Rule Against Bias (Nemo Judex in Causa Sua)
Recusal means a judge stepping away from hearing a case because there is a reason that could make the judge look biased, or actually be biased. It rests on the rule of natural justice called nemo judex in causa sua: no one should be a judge in their own cause. India has no law that lists when a judge must recuse; the decision is left to the judge's own conscience.
Justice Narasimha had argued for the Union government as Additional Solicitor General in the NJAC case, which is the starting point of the MoP dispute. Stepping away avoids any appearance that his earlier role could shape the outcome of the new PIL.
- PIL filed by: Lok Prahari (NGO); bench listed: Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe
- Recusal date: 2 November 2026; reason: earlier appeared as Additional Solicitor General in the NJAC proceedings
- Revised MoP pending for nearly 11 years (since the December 2015 direction)
- MoP framed: 30 June 1999; separate MoPs for Supreme Court and High Courts
- NJAC struck down: 16 October 2015 (4:1); 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014
- Collegium's final view on revised MoP received by government: 13 March 2017
- PLR Projects v. Mahanadi Coalfields (2021): IB report 4–6 weeks; Centre 8–12 weeks; appointment within 3–4 weeks of reiteration
- Articles: 124(2), 217(1), 222, 224, 224A