Adv. Shwetasree Majumder.
Advocate Shwetasree Majumdar Withdraws Consent for Judgeship Amidst Centre’s Inaction: New Delhi, India – July 5, 2025 – In a development that highlights ongoing concerns regarding delays in judicial appointments, prominent intellectual property rights advocate Shwetasree Majumdar has withdrawn her consent for appointment as a judge of the Delhi High Court. Her decision comes after the Union Government reportedly kept the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendation of her name pending for nearly a year.
Majumdar confirmed the development to LiveLaw, though she did not disclose specific reasons for her decision.
The Supreme Court Collegium, then headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, had recommended Majumdar’s name on August 21, 2024, alongside two other advocates, Ajay Digpaul and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar. While the Central Government cleared the appointments of Digpaul and Shankar on January 6, 2025 – both recommended in the same resolution – Majumdar’s name remained pending without any reasons being assigned for the delay.
An alumna of the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, Majumdar is highly regarded for her extensive practice in intellectual property rights, particularly on the original side of the Delhi High Court. Her distinguished career includes appointments as Amicus Curiae by various benches of the Delhi High Court, and she 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), underscoring her expertise and international standing.
READ: Bombay High Court Launches Live Streaming of Proceedings on YouTube
Pattern of Delays and Concerns from the Judiciary
Supreme Court.
This instance is not isolated. The Union Government has faced criticism for its perceived inaction on several Collegium proposals. Notably, 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 in January 2023, after explicitly overruling objections related to his sexual orientation. As per established legal principles, a reiteration made by the Collegium is binding on the Centre.
Another similar case involved Senior Advocate Adithya Sondhi, who in February 2022 also withdrew his consent for judgeship. This occurred after the Centre failed to act on the Collegium’s initial recommendation for over a year and on its reiteration for nearly five months.
The Supreme Court, on its judicial side, has repeatedly expressed concern over these delays and the Centre’s selective withholding of approvals, particularly while hearing a petition concerning judicial appointments. The Court has observed that such an approach could deter competent lawyers from consenting to judgeship, as the uncertainty surrounding appointments may adversely impact their professional practice.
READ: Yogendra Yadav Challenges Bihar Voter Roll Revision in Supreme Court
In an order passed in November 2023, the Court remarked, “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.”
Further, in a resolution passed in March 2023, the Supreme Court Collegium itself formally recorded its unhappiness over the Centre selectively withholding certain names. Taking note that the approval of John Sathyan, whose name was reiterated for the Madras High Court, was withheld while 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.”
Majumdar’s withdrawal adds another prominent name to the list of distinguished legal professionals who have opted out of judgeship due to the protracted and opaque appointment process, further fueling the debate around judicial independence and the efficiency of the appointment mechanism.
READ: Delhi High Court Denies Toyota’s Patent Injunction Plea Against LMW as Patent Expires
