Loading…
The President, exercising power under the Constitution and after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, appointed Shri Chirag Bhanu as a Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court and Shri Bhupesh Sharma and Shri Yogesh Jaswal as Additional Judges of that Court.
All three are serving judicial officers elevated to the bench, and the appointments were notified by the Ministry of Law and Justice on 27 August 2026.
The notification illustrates the two distinct constitutional routes to a High Court bench: Article 217 for a permanent Judge and Article 224 for an Additional Judge appointed for a fixed period not exceeding two years.
Governs the appointment and conditions of office of a Judge of a High Court. Every High Court judge is appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State, and, for an appointment other than that of Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of that High Court. A judge holds office until the age of 62 years.
Sets the eligibility bar: the person must be a citizen of India and must have either held a judicial office in India for at least ten years or been an advocate of a High Court, or of two or more such Courts in succession, for at least ten years. All three appointees here come through the first route, as serving judicial officers.
Provides for Additional and Acting Judges. Where a temporary increase in business or arrears of work makes it appear to the President that a High Court's strength should be increased for the time being, the President may appoint duly qualified persons as Additional Judges for a period not exceeding two years. This is the provision under which Shri Bhupesh Sharma and Shri Yogesh Jaswal were appointed.
Inserted by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963. Allows the Chief Justice of a High Court, with the President's previous consent, to request a retired judge to sit and act as a judge of that High Court, with all the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of a judge. It is frequently confused with Article 224 in the exam.
Raised the retirement age of High Court judges from 60 to 62 years, added Article 224A, and inserted Article 217(3) empowering the President, after consultation with the CJI, to decide finally any question about a High Court judge's age.
Sought to replace the collegium with a National Judicial Appointments Commission for appointments to the Supreme Court and the High Courts. Both were struck down as unconstitutional by a Constitution Bench in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) by a 4:1 majority, on the ground that judicial primacy in appointments is part of the Constitution's basic structure. The collegium system therefore survives and is what produced this warrant.
The Constitution says only that the President appoints after 'consultation'. Three Supreme Court decisions turned that word into a binding process. In the First Judges Case (S.P. Gupta, 1981) the Court held that consultation did not mean concurrence, leaving primacy with the executive. The Second Judges Case (1993), decided by a nine-judge Bench, reversed that position and made the CJI's view binding. The Third Judges Case (1998), an advisory opinion on a Presidential reference, settled the numbers: for High Court appointments the recommending body is a collegium of the Chief Justice of India and the two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, while for Supreme Court appointments it is the CJI plus the four senior-most judges. A proposal begins with the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned in consultation with two of that Court's senior-most judges, goes to the State's Chief Minister and Governor, then to the Union Law Ministry, then to the Supreme Court collegium, and finally to the President, who issues the warrant. The Union Government framed a Memorandum of Procedure on 30 June 1999 codifying this sequence, and the effort to redraft it after the 2015 NJAC verdict has remained unresolved.
Simple Analogy: Think of it as a sealed recommendation that can be sent back once but not overruled: the government may return a name to the collegium with objections, but if the collegium repeats the name, the government is bound to process it.
The State's highest court, established on 25 January 1971 when Himachal Pradesh became a full State; sanctioned strength of 17 judges, comprising 13 permanent and 4 additional posts, making it one of the smaller High Courts in the country
The judicially created body that recommends appointments and transfers of judges; for High Court appointments it comprises the CJI and the two senior-most Supreme Court judges. It has no textual basis in the Constitution, being the product of the Second and Third Judges Cases
Nodal department of the Union Government for the appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts; it processes collegium recommendations, obtains the President's warrant and issues the notification, and publishes the periodic statement of sanctioned, working and vacant judicial strength for every High Court
High Court of Himachal Pradesh established at Shimla, initially with one Chief Justice and two judges
First Judges Case (S.P. Gupta v. Union of India): consultation held not to mean concurrence, leaving executive primacy
Second Judges Case: a nine-judge Bench reverses the position and makes the CJI's view, formed collegially, binding
Third Judges Case: a Presidential reference fixes collegium strength at the CJI plus four senior-most judges for Supreme Court appointments and the CJI plus two for High Court appointments
Union Government frames the Memorandum of Procedure codifying the step-by-step appointment process
Constitution (99th Amendment) Act and the NJAC Act enacted to replace the collegium
Supreme Court strikes down both in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India by a 4:1 majority, restoring the collegium
President appoints Shri Chirag Bhanu as Judge and Shri Bhupesh Sharma and Shri Yogesh Jaswal as Additional Judges of the Himachal Pradesh High Court
The President may transfer a judge from one High Court to another after consultation with the CJI; the same collegium of three decides transfers, which is why transfer and appointment are usually studied together.
The same three Judges Cases govern both, and only the collegium size differs, four senior-most judges instead of two, a distinction examiners test directly.
Under Article 217(1)(b) read with Article 124(4), a High Court judge can be removed only by the President following an address by both Houses of Parliament with a special majority, on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, with the procedure laid down in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
Article 224 exists precisely to absorb temporary surges in workload, and the Department of Justice's periodic vacancy statements are the standard data source cited in questions on judicial pendency.
The 2015 NJAC verdict is one of the most-cited later applications of the Kesavananda Bharati (1973) basic structure doctrine, using judicial independence as the feature the amendment violated.
GS Paper 2 > Polity > Structure, organisation and functioning of the Judiciary
General Awareness > Indian Polity > Judiciary
General Awareness > Indian Constitution
Judicial appointments appear in UPSC Prelims and Mains almost every cycle, and the collegium versus NJAC debate is a recurring GS Paper 2 and interview theme.
The formal instrument of appointment signed by the President under Article 217; a judge's appointment takes effect through it, not through the collegium recommendation.
A High Court judge appointed under Article 224 for a specified period not exceeding two years to clear a temporary increase in business or arrears of work.
The executive document framed on 30 June 1999 that sets out, step by step, how names move between the High Court collegium, the State government, the Law Ministry, the Supreme Court collegium and the President.
The judicially evolved body of senior-most judges that recommends judicial appointments and transfers; it finds no mention in the constitutional text.
The number of judicial posts approved for a High Court, split into permanent and additional; for Himachal Pradesh it is 17, being 13 permanent and 4 additional.