Collegium System in India – The Controversy of Judiciary Transparency vs. Independence

Dark mode:OFF
Reading time: 6 minutes

Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) questioned the government regarding the delay in approving Collegium recommendations for judicial appointments to several High Courts (HC).

Disclaimer: IAS EXPRESS owns the copyright of this content.

What is the collegium system?

  • The Collegium system in India also called “Judges- selecting- Judges”, is the system by which the judges are appointed and transferred only by the judges.
  • The system has evolved by means of the judgments of the Supreme Court, and not by an Act of Parliament or by a Constitutional provision.
  • The Supreme Court Collegium is headed by the Chief Justice of India and comprises 4 other senior-most judges of SC.
  • A High Court collegium is headed by its Chief Justice and 4 other senior-most judges of that court. Names recommended for appointment by a High Court collegium reaches the government only after approval by the CJI and the Supreme Court collegium.
  • The government is mandated to appoint a person as a Supreme Court judge if the collegium reiterates its recommendation.

How has the collegium system evolved in India?


  • The constituent assembly adopted a consultative process of appointing judges to make sure that judges are not affected by political influence.
  • It avoided legislative interference as well as providing a veto to the Chief Justice.
  • Instead, it vested in the President the power to make appointments and transfer judges between high courts.
  • The President (normally act on the advice of the council of ministers) was however needed to consult certain authorities such as the CJI or CJ of High Court.

First Judges Case, 1981

  • The Supreme Court in the First Judges Case, 1981 ruled that the word “Consultation” could not be interpreted to mean “concurrence” = CJI’s opinion is not binding on the executive.
  • The Executive could depart from the CJI’s opinion only in exceptional situations and any such decision could be subject to judicial review.

Second Judges Case, 1993

  • The SC in Second Judges Case, 1993 overruled its earlier decisions.
  • It now held that Consultation meant concurrence and that the CJI’s opinion enjoys supremacy = binding on the executive.
  • This decision was justified by the court claiming that the CJI could be the best option to know and assess the worth of candidates.
  • However, the CJI has to formulate the opinion only via a body of senior judges that the court described as the ‘collegium’.

Third Judges Case, 1998

  • The SC in the third judges case, 1998 clarified that the collegium would consist of
    • CJI and 4 senior-most judges in case of appointments to the Supreme Court.
    • CJI and 2 senior-most judges in case of appointments to the High Court.

About Three Judges Cases (not third)

  • Three Judges Cases = First Judges Case 1981 + Second Judges Case 1993 + Third Judges case 1998.
  • Over the course of these 3 cases, the court evolved the principle of judicial independence.
  • This meant that no other branch of the state (legislature and executive) can interfere with the appointment of judges.
  • It is with this principle in mind that the SC introduced the collegium system.

National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)

  • The government through the 99th constitutional amendment wanted to replace the collegium with the NJAC.
  • The NJAC comprised of 3 judges of SC, a central law minister, and 2 civil society experts.
  • A person would not be recommended by NJAC if any 2 of its members did not accept such recommendation = making the appointment process more broad-based.
  • However, it was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 in the Fourth Judges Case.

Fourth Judges Case, 2015

  • In the Fourth Judges Case, 2015, the SC upheld the primacy of the collegium by striking down the NJAC law.
  • The court’s rationale was that the NJAC law offered politicians equal power in judicial appointments to constitutional courts which is against the provision of “separation of power” under the Basic Structure of the constitution = Ultra Vires of the constitution.
  • Thus the SC declared the collegium as part of the Constitution’s basic structure = its power could not be removed even through a constitutional amendment.
  • However, due to the widespread criticisms against the collegium, the judgement promised to consider necessary measures to improve the collegium system. For this purpose, the SC required the government to submit the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP).

Memorandum of Procedure (MoP)

  • It is an agreement between the judiciary and the government which contains a set of guidelines for making appointments to the higher judiciary.
  • Even though the draft MoP has been sent to the SC by the government, it is stuck between them as certain sections in it are alleged to be of taking away powers of the court to appoint judges.

What are the criticisms against the collegium?

  • Unconstitutional and autocratic: ‘Collegium’ is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution and has been evolved by the judiciary itself for retaining the power to select judges by itself.
  • Undemocratic: Selection of judges by collegium is undemocratic since judges are not elected by the people and are not accountable to the people or to anyone else.
  • Non-transparency and opaque: (No official procedure for selection + lack of a written manual for functioning + selective publication of records of meetings+ no eligibility criteria of judges) = bring opacity in collegium’s functioning.
  • Promotes nepotism: Sons and nephews of previous judges or senior lawyers tend to be popular choices for judicial roles. Thus it encourages mediocrity in the judiciary by excluding talented ones.
  • Inefficient: Collegium has not been able to prevent the increasing cases of vacancies of judges and cases in courts.
  • Ignores SC’s own guidelines: The recent supersession in appointment is inconsistent with the view of the Supreme Court in the Second Judge’s case, 1993, where it laid that:
    • Seniority amongst Judges in their High Courts and on all India basis is significant and should be given due consideration while making appointments from amongst High Court Judges to the Supreme Court.
    • Unless there is any strong reason to justify a departure, that order of seniority must be maintained between them while making their appointment to the Supreme Court.
  • Against established conventions: The convention of ‘seniority’ has long been held as the procedure for appointments but ‘supersession’ ignores and abdicates this convention, creating space for subjectivity and individual bias in appointments.
  • No reforms made after the fourth judges case: After striking down the NJAC, the court did nothing to amend the NJAC Act or add safeguards to it that would have made it constitutionally valid. Instead, the court reverted to the old Collegium-based appointments mechanism.

What is the way forward?

The subjectivity and the inconsistency of the collegium system highlight the need to relook at the process of appointment of judges:

  • The NJAC should be amended to make sure that the judiciary retains independence in its decisions and re-introduced in some form or the other.
  • A written manual should be released by the Supreme Court which should be followed during appointments and records of all meeting should be in the public domain in order to ensure transparency and rule-based process.

Thus, India needs to restore the credibility of the higher judiciary by making the process of the appointing judges transparent and democratic. Apart from reforming the collegium system, the quality of judges can also be improved through the implementation of All India Judicial Services (AIJS).

Related Articles

Judicial Federalism – Meaning, Components and the Indian Context

Recently, the Supreme Court of India taking suo motu cognizance of some of the key issues related to Covid-19 management which included the supply of oxygen and essential drugs and declaration of lockdowns noted that the matter being heard in the several High Courts is ‘creating confusion’ and ‘diversion of resources’. Various High Courts were dealing with such cases when the Supreme Court of India took up the issue to itself and decided to pass some orders on the issue of ‘distribution of essential supplies and services during pandemic’. Additionally, the Court issued an order asking the State governments and the Union Territories to “show cause why uniform orders” should not be passed by the Supreme Court. It thus indicated the possibility of transfer of cases to the Supreme Court which it has done on various occasions. The recent incident brings out the issue of judicial federalism to the fore and highlights its functioning in India.

Administrative Tribunals in India: Features, Pros, Cons, Challenges

The administrative tribunals are not a novel creation of India’s political system. Rather, they are well-recognised in the US and various other democratic nations in Europe. The administrative tribunal is vital in the current times as the traditional judicial system is proving to be inadequate to settle all disputes. The traditional judicial system is slow, costly and complex. It is, at present, understaffed and is overloaded with the already existing pending cases. It can’t deal with even important cases like disputes between employers and employees, strikes, etc in a fast-paced manner. These problems can’t be solved through a mere interpretation of the provisions of any statute. A comprehensive and holistic approach are necessary for long-term speedy solutions. This is where the tribunal comes in.

Fast Track Courts in India – An Overview

The government has recently proposed to set up 1,023 Fast-Track Courts (FTCs). This was with the backdrop of Supreme Court in a suo moto petition, issued directions to set up special courts.

The SC stated that the districts with more than 100 cases pending under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act must set up special courts to deal with these cases.

According to National Judicial Data Grid Statistics, there are about 3 crore cases pending in the SC, HCs and the subordinate courts across the country. Focusing on the FTCs to solve this issue is the need of the hour.

Since its establishment, these special courts have disposed of more than three million cases. However, FTCs is currently decreasing and its potential is not fully realized as it lacks basic infrastructure, technological resources, and manpower.

Judicial Transparency in India – Problems, Concerns and Way Forward

With the retirement of Justice Arun Mishra on September 2, not only the strength of the Supreme Court judges will get reduced to 30 from the total 34 but the regional imbalance will get further accentuated. As many as nine high courts are not represented at all in the apex court and with Justice Mishra’s retirement, this will rise to 10. Justice Mishra belongs to the state of Madhya Pradesh and he is currently the only representative from the state. The high courts of Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Tripura, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Manipur, Meghalaya, Sikkim and Odisha have no judges in the Supreme Court currently. In this context the way in which the system of appointments is currently functioning needs a serious rethinking as advocated by recent survey published in May 2020 by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy with a majority of the surveyed advocates demanding greater transparency in its operation.

Notify of
1 Comment
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mangrove – upscnotesbyneha
4 months ago

[…] the Mumbai High Court had classified mangroves as forests. In 2018, the High Court called the destruction of mangroves […]

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x