Srinagar: The Supreme Court collegium’s decision to approve nine advocates for appointment as judges of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh high court has raised questions over regional representation in the higher judiciary. Political leaders and lawyers allege that Kashmir’s institutional space is shrinking as the list carries an uneven share between Jammu and Kashmir.Of the nine advocates cleared by the collegium on Thursday (October 29), only three are Kashmiris, of which two are those who have been practising in Kashmir for many years, according to the regional classification cited by political leaders and lawyers. A third advocate identified as Kashmiri is a Kashmiri Pandit, Anupam Raina, who had transferred his licence from the Bar Council of Delhi to the Bar Council of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh in 2025, a year before his name was recommended for elevation.The decision has raised fresh concerns about the representation of Kashmiris in institutions that exercise considerable influence over the region’s public life, particularly when the judiciary itself is expected to uphold constitutional rights and ensure equal treatment.“It’s deeply concerning that Kashmiris continue to be sidelined when it comes to representation in key institutions. Of the four Kashmiri advocates recommended by the high court collegium among the 11 names, only three have been cleared for appointment. This further marginalises Kashmir’s already limited representation in the judiciary,” senior leader of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Pulwama MLA Waheed Ur Rehman Parra told The Wire.In April 2026, the collegium of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh high court, headed by then Chief Justice Arun Palli, recommended 11 names for appointment as judges. The recommendations comprised ten advocates under the bar quota and one judicial officer under the bench quota. The exercise marked the first time that such a large batch of candidates was processed in a single round by the high court.The recommendations were made by the high court collegium comprising Chief Justice Palli and judges Sanjeev Kumar and Sindhu Sharma. Palli was subsequently elevated to the Supreme Court on June 1 and took the oath of office on June 2 even before the Supreme Court collegium approved the list.A broader debateThe criticism of the list comes amid a broader debate over the distribution of institutional power and representation in Jammu and Kashmir following the 2019 abrogation of Article 370 and the reorganisation of the erstwhile state into two Union Territories. “In the regional context, the selection looks distorted and seems to have followed the prevailing trend. Let us hope justice prevails,” Jammu and Kashmir Peoples Conference president and Handwara MLA Sajad Gani Lone told The Wire.It’s pertinent to mention that the appointment of high court judges is governed by the constitutional collegium system. Under the established procedure, recommendations are considered by the Supreme Court collegium, comprising the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.“Unfortunately, the government has begun interfering in judicial appointments. They(govt) will deny it, but this is true, and people in the judiciary know how it happens. These elevations appear to be driven more by political considerations than by merit. Judicial appointments must remain independent, transparent and strictly merit-based, free from political influence. Any compromise on these principles destroys public confidence in the judiciary and raises serious questions about the independence of the institution,” a senior advocate working in Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh high court told The Wire.While the collegium is not constitutionally bound to approve every name recommended by a high court, the absence of publicly stated reasons for individual exclusions can leave important questions about the selection process unanswered. “We have witnessed a similar pattern in the bureaucracy, and now the same appears to be unfolding in the judiciary. It raises serious questions about the systematic exclusion of Kashmiris from institutions that are meant to serve the people,” Parra said.Namgyal Wangchuk, who hails from Ladakh, is on the list giving representation to the newly formed Union Territory of Ladakh. The name of senior advocate Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, who served as the advocate general of Jammu and Kashmir from June 2016 to July 2018, is missing from the approved list. The recommendations will now proceed through the prescribed appointment process, including consideration by the Union government and formal appointment by the president of India.The Supreme Court collegium has approved nine of the ten advocates recommended by the high court collegium under the Bar quota. The judicial officer recommended under the Bench quota, Bourney, had already received the Supreme Court Collegium’s approval and was sworn in as a judge of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh high court in September.Ganai’s exclusion has raised questions among those familiar with the high court’s recommendations, particularly as several advocates whose appointments have been approved are reportedly junior to him or have only recently been designated as senior advocates.Advocate Shakir Parray, a practising lawyer, criticised the regional composition of the approved list, arguing that the decision reflected a wider pattern of shrinking institutional space for Kashmiris. “Of the nine advocates recommended for appointment as judges of the Jammu and Kashmir high court, only TWO are from Kashmir. This is not merely about representation. It raises serious questions about the systematic shrinking of Kashmir’s institutional space,” Parray wrote on X.Parray said the process of diminishing Kashmiri representation had begun in the civil administration and was now extending to the higher judiciary. “Jammu has gained a disproportionately large share of public employment in recent years, and now the higher judiciary is following the same pattern,” he said.The Supreme Court Collegium has not publicly disclosed a reason for not approving Ganai’s name. The lack of publicly available reasons have got the approval process under scrutiny, particularly given the wider concerns over representation raised by political leaders and lawyers.“The appointment of judges is not impartial, and this is not a new concern. Regional bureaucrats are not being given key postings. Deputy Commissioners and SSPs are largely non-locals, and now there are apprehensions that even SHOs will eventually be replaced by non-locals. The recruitment of Sub-Inspectors and the distribution of EWS certificates have also raised concerns, with Jammu Division receiving a greater share than Kashmir despite the valley having a larger population,” Awami Itihad Party spokesperson Baba Firdous told The Wire.The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh high court has a sanctioned strength of 25 judges, comprising 19 permanent and six additional judges. It currently has 14 working judges, leaving 11 vacancies. Even after the nine proposed appointments are completed, one vacancy would remain.The appointment process therefore comes at a time when the high court continues to operate below its sanctioned strength, adding to the significance of the Collegium’s decisions on the composition of the bench.The criticism of the judicial appointments has also brought the administrative structure of Jammu and Kashmir into focus. In 2021, the Union government merged the Jammu and Kashmir cadre of IAS, IPS and IFS officers with the Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Mizoram and Union Territory (AGMUT) cadre through an ordinance. The move enabled officers serving in these states and Union Territories to be posted in Jammu and Kashmir and vice versa.Critics have argued that the restructuring weakened the region’s distinct administrative cadre and reduced the institutional continuity provided by officers with long experience of local conditions. “When Kashmiris are steadily sidelined from one institution after another, it is difficult not to see a larger pattern at work,” Parray said.Former Jammu and Kashmir finance minister Haseeb Drabu, writing in The Tribune on October 30, also warned about the long-term consequences of the restructuring of the administrative cadre. “The post-2021 structure has systematically reduced the space for officers who had both long local tenures and career incentives tied to the region. Once the last cohort with significant Valley socialisation exits around 2029, the channel that carried local sentiment upward (however imperfectly) will narrow further,” Drabu wrote.“The decimation of the J&K cadre is therefore double-edged. On the one hand, it removes officers who had deep local domain knowledge, be it of the revenue system, forest settlements, irrigation, power and the historical sediment of special status. On the other hand, it removes a cadre that had, in critical periods, become a channel to communicate the local sentiment,” he added.Critics said that the fresh approval raises serious questions on whether the institutions governing Jammu and Kashmir adequately reflect the region’s social and regional composition, and what mechanisms exist to address concerns about representation.The debate over the filling of top ranks in judiciary has also extended beyond regional representation to the underrepresentation of Muslims in the country’s higher judiciary and other public institutions. “Muslim Majority erstwhile state of JK?????” senior journalist Nayeema Mehjoor wrote on X while sharing the list of approved candidates.“There is a growing apprehension that the objective is to reduce Muslim representation. People are increasingly questioning the impartiality of the judiciary as well. Locals understand the region and its complexities, whereas outsiders may create further difficulties. Everything appears to be controlled by Delhi, while the National Conference government remains largely nominal,” she added.Muslims constitute around 15% of India’s population, but their representation in the higher judiciary remains significantly lower. The Supreme Court has one Muslim judge at present, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, out of its current strength of 37. In the history of the apex court there have only been 18 Muslim judges.“The structural marginalisation of Muslims across India’s institutions is deeply concerning. With just 4.42% representation in the Lok Sabha, one Muslim among 33 Supreme Court judges (2023) and 2.8% in the bureaucracy, the exclusion is stark. Of approximately 645 high court judges, only 25 are Muslims, with nearly 17 high courts having no Muslim judge,” PDP spokesperson Mir Zuhaib told The Wire.Political representation has followed a similar trajectory in the country. The 18th Lok Sabha has the lowest share of Muslim MPs in six decades, with 24 Muslim MPs accounting for approximately 4.4% of its total membership.The representation of Muslims in the administration, judiciary and law making at national level provide a wider context for the concerns raised over the judicial appointments in Jammu and Kashmir.For critics, the issue goes beyond the appointment of nine individuals. It concerns the extent to which Kashmiris continue to find representation in institutions that shape the administration of justice and the exercise of public power in the region.“At a time when corrective measures are essential, alienation persists. J&K reflects these concerns, making the inclusion of merely two Kashmiri Muslim judges unsurprising. The collegium’s opacity compounds the problem. Who was dropped, why, and on what grounds? Without transparency, meaningful scrutiny remains impossible. Justice Sanjay Kaul’s remarks on prior government approval deserve serious consideration,” Mir said.