Advocate Shwetasree Majumdar Withdraws Consent For Judgeship After Centre's Inaction On Collegium Proposal

Advocate Shwetasree Majumdar has withdrawn her consent for appointment as a judge of the Delhi High Court after the Centre kept the Supreme Court Collegium's recommendation of her name pending for nearly a year.

She confirmed the development to LiveLaw, though did not disclose any reasons for her decision.

On August 21, 2024, the Supreme Court Collegium, then headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, had recommended Majumdar's name along with two other advocates, Ajay Digpaul and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar. While the Central Government, on January 6, 2025, cleared the appointments of the other two advocates who were recommended in the same resolution, Majumdar's name was left pending without any reasons being assigned.

Majumdar, an alumna of the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, is known for her practice in the field of intellectual property rights in the Delhi High Court original side. She has been appointed Amicus Curiae by various benches of the Delhi High Court and served on the six-member committee responsible for drafting the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. She is also a Panelist with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). 

This is not the only instance of the Union Government failing to act timely on the collegium proposals. The Centre is yet to clear the appointment of Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal to the Delhi High Court, despite the Supreme Court having reiterated his name way back in January 2023, after overruling objections related to his sexual orientation. As per the law, a reiteration made by the Collegium is binding on the Centre.

In February 2022, Senior Advocate Adithya Sondhi also withdrew his consent for the judgeship after the Centre refused to act on the Collegium's recommendation for over a year and on the Collegium's reiteration for nearly five months.

The Supreme Court, on its judicial side, while hearing a petition concerning delays in judicial appointments, has expressed concern over the Centre's selective withholding of approvals. The Court observed that such an approach could deter competent lawyers from consenting to judgeship, as the uncertainty surrounding appointments may adversely impact their professional practice.

"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," the Court observed in its order passed in November 2023.

In a resolution passed in March 2023, the Supreme Court Collegium also recorded its unhappiness over the Centre withholding certain names selectively. Taking note of the fact that the approval of John Sathyan, whose name was reiterated for the Madras High Court, was withheld, many other subsequently recommended names were approved, the Collegium observed : "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".