Former Supreme Court judge Justice K.M. Joseph has urged the Central Government not to delay action on judicial appointments after the Collegium reiterates a recommendation. His statement revives the core constitutional tension in the Second and Third Judges Cases: once the Collegium reiterates, the binding nature of that recommendation leaves the executive with no discretion to withhold or indefinitely defer appointment, making such delay a constitutional violation rather than a policy choice.

The Collegium system governs judicial appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts under Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution. Its constitutional basis rests on three landmark rulings collectively called the 'Three Judges Cases.'

First Judges Case (S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981): The Supreme Court held that the Chief Justice of India's opinion on appointments was not binding on the executive, giving the government primacy.

Second Judges Case (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, 1993): A nine-judge bench overruled the First Judges Case. It held that 'consultation' in Articles 124 and 217 means 'concurrence.' The CJI's opinion, formed in consultation with the two senior-most judges, is binding on the executive.

Third Judges Case (Presidential Reference, 1998): The Court clarified that the Collegium consists of the CJI and the four senior-most judges, and a reiterated recommendation is binding — the President must act on it.

The critical legal principle Justice Joseph invokes: once the Collegium reiterates a recommendation that was returned by the executive, the executive loses any residual discretion and must appoint. Indefinite sitting on such a recommendation is therefore unconstitutional — it amounts to an indirect veto the Constitution does not permit. The NJAC judgment (2015) further confirmed that the Collegium's primacy cannot be displaced by statute, striking down the 99th Constitutional Amendment.