Mains Marathon

Approach :

• Begin by explaining the collegium system.
• Highlight the merits and demerits of the collegium system.
• Suggest necessary reforms.
• Conclude with a scholarly remark.

Introduction:

The Collegium system, developed through judicial precedent rather than legislation, governs the appointment and transfer of judges to the higher judiciary in India. While the system was created to safeguard judicial independence from executive overreach, it has drawn increasing criticism for its opaque, unaccountable, and non-inclusive functioning.

Body :

Evolution and Structure of the Collegium System

• The Collegium system evolved from the Second Judges Case (1993) and was reaffirmed in the Third Judges Case (1998).
• It gave primacy to the judiciary in the appointment and transfer of judges, thus overturning the executive-dominated model of the past. The system comprises:
  • For the Supreme Court: Chief Justice of India (CJI) + 4 senior-most judges.
  • For High Courts: Chief Justice of the High Court + 2 senior-most judges.

Merits of the Collegium System

• This judicial innovation was aimed at insulating appointments from political bias, thereby upholding separation of powers under Article 50.
• Ensures institutional continuity and seniority-based decision-making.
• Promotes peer review, which in theory should lead to meritorious selections.
• Reduces bureaucratic delays compared to executive-led processes.

Challenges and Criticisms

• Opacity and Secrecy: There are no clearly defined criteria for selection, no minutes of meetings, and no reasons for selections or rejections made public.
  • Justice Ruma Pal once described the system as “one of the best-kept secrets in the country,” highlighting its closed nature.
• Lack of Diversity: The system has failed to promote adequate representation of women, Dalits, minorities, and regional voices in the higher judiciary.
• Allegations of Favouritism: Without external scrutiny, selections may be perceived as biased or reflecting a ‘judges choosing judges’ culture.
• Supreme Court Verdict on NJAC: In the landmark case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC, declaring it unconstitutional.
  • While the Court was right to uphold judicial independence, it failed to address the shortcomings of the existing Collegium system, including lack of transparency, diversity, and accountability.

Suggested Reforms with Safeguards

• Codify Collegium Procedures: Introduce a formal, written procedure for selection, with clear eligibility and evaluation metrics.
• Ensure Transparency: Publish reasons for appointments/rejections, without compromising sensitive information.
• Second Administrative Reforms Commission: Recommended an independent Judicial Appointments Commission with balanced representation from judiciary, executive, and civil society.
• Institutional Oversight: A revised NJAC-like model with limited executive and public representation, ensuring accountability without compromising judicial primacy.
• Learn from Global Models: UK’s Judicial Appointments Commission combines transparency with judicial autonomy.

Conclusion:

The Collegium system was conceived as a constitutional safeguard, but its non-transparent functioning has eroded public confidence. Reforms are essential not to undermine judicial independence, but to enhance the judiciary’s credibility. As the Supreme Court itself noted in the NJAC judgment (2015), “Transparency is the governing principle of democracy—not secrecy.” Striking this balance is key to judicial legitimacy in the world’s largest democracy.