Article 126

The Supreme Court cannot function without leadership, especially since the Chief Justice performs important administrative and constitutional roles, such as recommending judicial appointments and constituting benches. The framers included this provision to ensure continuity of leadership during gaps caused by retirement, death, resignation, illness, or foreign travel, avoiding any paralysis in the Court's functioning until a regular or new Chief Justice is appointed under Article 124.

There is limited judicial controversy specifically on Article 126, as it is largely a mechanical, administrative provision. Courts and constitutional practice have generally treated the appointment of an acting Chief Justice as a temporary, stop-gap arrangement, distinct from the regular appointment process under Article 124. Discussions around judicial appointments and the collegium system (e.g., in the Second and Third Judges Cases) have focused more on Article 124 than Article 126, since acting appointments are seen as routine administrative necessities rather than sites of major constitutional dispute.

• Myth: The acting Chief Justice appointed under Article 126 becomes the permanent Chief Justice.
  Fact: This appointment is temporary and only lasts until the vacancy is filled or the regular Chief Justice can resume duties; it does not make someone the permanent Chief Justice of India.
• Myth: The President can appoint anyone as acting Chief Justice.
  Fact: The President can only appoint one of the existing judges of the Supreme Court to perform the Chief Justice's duties temporarily, not an outsider or a judge from another court.