Opaque collegium system demands urgent reform

Shillong, India Jul 11, 2026 ALN: Editor,

The Supreme Court Collegium system reveals a profound paradox at the heart of the higher judiciary: a system where the Supreme Court fiercely guards judicial review as a check on executive excess, yet completely insulates its own appointment process from the exact same scrutiny.

This insulation is built on the troubling premise that judicial selection is entirely beyond review, operating on a self-declared claim that the assessment of merit and integrity is a matter for the collegium alone. Historically, this controversial mechanism is a pure judicial creation rather than a constitutional mandate, having been carved out of the Second Judges Case (1993) amidst institutional anxieties. Even at its inception, prominent legal minds fiercely contested this shift; Justices AM Ahmadi and MM Punchhi dissented, warning that the Court should not read into the Constitution what it does not contain, while the legendary constitutional scholar HM Seervai delivered a scathing indictment, labelling the judgment “a low point of judicial competence.” Despite these grave warnings, the Third Judges Case in 1998 further entrenched this judicial primacy, expanding the non-constitutional body to five senior judges.

The operational reality of this system exposes severe vulnerabilities, primarily characterised by weak accountability, questionable appointments, and arbitrary omissions. The collegium operates entirely behind closed doors, completely devoid of publicly articulated criteria for elevating one judge while rejecting another. This lack of transparency raises significant concerns about the integrity of the selection process and the qualifications of those who are ultimately appointed.

By shunning transparency and rarely disclosing dissenting opinions, the system actively fuels widespread allegations of arbitrariness, favouritism and nepotism, while casting a dark shadow over regional and community representation. Defenders of the status quo disingenuously frame this absolute secrecy as a necessary feature to ward off political pressure and media noise. However, this argument fails to hold water when considering that accountability and transparency are foundational principles of democratic governance.

Moreover, history shows that even brief experiments with transparency—such as the 2017 initiative to publish resolutions following public scrutiny—were short-lived. By 2019, detailed reasonings were quietly abandoned in favour of bare announcements that hide dissenting views and reveal only final names. This persistent culture of “judges appointing judges” leaves the public with an echo chamber that resists outside sunlight, proving that the system remains too imperfect to ignore and far too flawed to remain as is.

The implications of this opaque system extend beyond mere administrative inefficiencies; they touch upon the very foundations of democratic governance and the rule of law. The lack of accountability in judicial appointments can lead to a judiciary that is out of touch with the societal needs it is meant to serve. A judiciary that is perceived as elitist or disconnected may struggle to maintain public confidence, which is essential for the legitimacy of any judicial system.

Furthermore, the absence of transparency in the collegium's decision-making process raises questions about the integrity of judicial appointments. When the criteria for selection are not disclosed, it becomes difficult to assess whether appointments are made based on merit or other, less scrupulous factors. This lack of clarity can foster a culture where nepotism and favoritism thrive, further eroding public trust in the judiciary. The perception that appointments may be influenced by personal relationships rather than objective qualifications can lead to disenchantment among aspiring judges and the general public alike.

Additionally, the concern over regional and community representation cannot be overstated. The judiciary in India is meant to reflect the diverse fabric of the nation, yet the current collegium system has been criticized for not adequately addressing the representation of various communities. This lack of representation can result in a judiciary that is ill-equipped to understand and adjudicate issues that disproportionately affect marginalized groups. A judiciary that lacks diversity may inadvertently perpetuate systemic biases and fail to deliver justice in a manner that resonates with the lived realities of all citizens.

To address these challenges, urgent reforms are necessary. One potential solution could involve establishing a more transparent selection process that includes public consultations and criteria for evaluating candidates. Such measures could help demystify the appointment process and promote greater public confidence in the judiciary. Transparency in the selection process would not only help to build trust but also encourage a broader pool of candidates to consider judicial appointments, knowing that their qualifications will be evaluated fairly.

Furthermore, introducing a mechanism for independent oversight may provide an additional layer of accountability, ensuring that appointments are not only fair but also perceived as such by the public. This could involve the establishment of an independent commission that reviews judicial appointments and provides recommendations based on established criteria. Such a body could help to ensure that the selection process is free from undue influence and that the judiciary remains committed to upholding the principles of justice and equality.

There is also a need to consider the role of diversity in judicial appointments. A more inclusive approach could involve actively seeking candidates from underrepresented backgrounds, thereby enriching the perspectives within the judiciary. This not only enhances the legitimacy of the judicial system but also ensures that it is better equipped to serve a diverse populace. By prioritizing diversity, the judiciary can better understand the complexities of societal issues and deliver judgments that reflect the values and needs of all segments of society.

Ultimately, the call for reform of the collegium system is not merely about enhancing transparency or accountability; it is about safeguarding the integrity of the judiciary itself. The judiciary plays a crucial role in upholding the Constitution and protecting the rights of citizens. If the appointment process remains shrouded in secrecy, the very foundation of judicial independence may be compromised. The judiciary must be seen as a pillar of democracy, one that operates not only independently but also transparently and inclusively.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court Collegium system, while designed to protect judicial independence, has resulted in an opaque process that demands urgent reform. By embracing transparency, accountability, and inclusivity, the judiciary can restore public confidence and ensure that it remains a true guardian of justice in a democratic society. The time has come for a critical reassessment of the collegium system, to ensure that it reflects the values of justice, equality, and fairness that are enshrined in the Constitution.

Yours etc.,

Rajiv Roy