All judges appointed to the High Court must be recommended by the Collegium. This Collegium consists of the Chief Justice of that High Court and its two senior-most judges. The Collegium sends these names to the State government, which can ask questions or raise objections. If the Collegium stands firm, the government must accept the recommendation. On November 9, 2025, the Madras High Court Collegium recommended six district judges for elevation. The State government did not oppose the candidates' merit but sought clarity on a key procedural matter. The government questioned the makeup of the Collegium itself. Justice J. Nisha Banu, an experienced judge who joined the High Court in 2016, currently ranks third in seniority. She is considered a Collegium judge at Madras High Court. But on October 14, 2025, the Union Ministry of Law and Justice, following Supreme Court Collegium advice, transferred her to Kerala High Court, dropping her seniority rank unexpectedly. However, Justice Nisha Banu did not join Kerala High Court. The State government asked why Justice Nisha Banu was excluded in favor of Justice M.S. Ramesh, the next senior judge, and what legal basis existed for this replacement. They wanted to know if any Supreme Court direction supported this move. Instead of addressing these questions, the Collegium recommended nine more advocates to fill vacancies without clarifying the core issue raised by the State regarding constitutional validity. This situation threatens India's constitutional values. The judicial appointment process is built on strict procedure. Ignoring a senior judge without explanation and including another without proper grounds risks voiding recommendations. It raises a constitutional crisis between the judiciary and State government. The Collegium system itself faces criticism for low transparency and suspected political bias. Experts say the Madras High Court Collegium must clearly explain Justice Nisha Banu's exclusion and the inclusion of Justice M.S. Ramesh. Silence could fuel doubts about motives behind judicial appointments. The Supreme Court is urged to review Collegium reforms, ensure clearer rules, public reasons, and transparency. The real question is not the suitability of the nominated judges but whether the appointment process follows Article 217 of the Constitution and the Memorandum of Procedure. When Collegium’s composition is unclear, its recommendations are also questionable, creating a constitutional impasse between the judiciary and the State government.