Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury Recommended as Permanent Judge of Calcutta High Court

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury, currently an Additional Judge, for appointment as a Permanent Judge of the Calcutta High Court, according to a resolution issued this week.

Confirmation as a Permanent Judge marks the end of the probationary period built into India's system of high court appointments, under which judges typically serve as Additional Judges for one or more fixed terms of roughly two years each before the Collegium recommends permanent status based on their accumulated record on the bench. It is the final procedural step before a judge holds settled office until the constitutionally mandated retirement age of 62.

The recommendation follows the Collegium's standard practice of reviewing an Additional Judge's judgments, disposal rate and conduct over successive terms before confirming permanency, a process that can extend an officer's Additional Judge status by several years depending on caseload, review timing and the availability of Collegium sittings to consider the file.

Calcutta High Court's sanctioned strength of 72 judges makes it one of the largest benches in the country, and permanent confirmations there carry particular weight given the volume of company law, intellectual property and constitutional matters the court hears, alongside its substantial regular civil and criminal appellate docket drawn from across West Bengal's district courts.

Once confirmed, Justice Chowdhury will hold office as a Permanent Judge until the constitutionally mandated retirement age, providing the court with settled bench strength rather than a judge whose tenure requires periodic Collegium renewal, as is the case with Additional Judges whose continuation must be reviewed and re-recommended at fixed intervals.

The recommendation now moves to the Union Law Ministry for processing before the President's formal notification under Article 217 of the Constitution, a stage that is typically faster for confirmations of sitting Additional Judges than for fresh appointments from the bar or judicial service, since the candidate's background has already been vetted at the point of the original Additional Judge appointment.

For litigants, the distinction between an Additional Judge and a Permanent Judge rarely affects the substance of a case, since both categories exercise identical judicial powers while sitting; the difference matters chiefly for the judge's own career security and for the court's institutional continuity, since Additional Judges cannot be certain of continuation until the Collegium acts.

The Collegium's resolution was issued this week and the confirmation is expected to be notified following Law Ministry clearance in the coming weeks.