Collegium System of Judicial Appointments in India

The Collegium system refers to India's judicial process for appointing and transferring judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. While the system plays a crucial role in maintaining judicial independence, it has also been the subject of much debate.

What is the Collegium System?

The Collegium system is not a constitutional provision, but has evolved through landmark Supreme Court judgments, notably the Three Judges Cases. The system aims to ensure the independence of the judiciary by placing the authority for judicial appointments largely in the hands of senior judges rather than the executive or legislature.

Evolution of the Collegium System

1. First Judges Case (1981):

   • Context: The Supreme Court held that the word "consultation" in Articles 124(2) (for SC judges) and 217 (for HC judges) did not mean "concurrence," giving primacy to the executive in judicial appointments.

   • Impact: The executive (the President and government) was considered to have the final say in judicial appointments.

2. Second Judges Case (1993):

   • Ruling: The Court overruled the First Judges Case and held that consultation meant concurrence. The advice of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) on judicial appointments was binding on the President.

   • Result: The Collegium system was formed, giving the judiciary the final authority in judicial appointments, with the CJI and two senior-most judges involved in making recommendations.

3. Third Judges Case (1998):

   • Expansion: The Collegium was expanded to include the CJI and the four most senior judges of the Supreme Court.

   • Composition of Collegium: The Supreme Court Collegium consists of the CJI and four senior-most SC judges; the High Court Collegium consists of the CJI and the two senior-most HC judges.

How Does the Collegium System Work?

1. Appointment of Judges:

   • SC Judges: The CJI initiates the process, consulting the Collegium and the senior-most judge from the candidate's High Court. Once the Collegium reaches a consensus, the recommendation is sent to the Law Minister and the Prime Minister, who advise the President for the appointment.

   • HC Judges: The President, in consultation with the CJI, Governor, and the Chief Justice of the respective High Court, appoints the judges.

2. Role of the Government:

   • The government can raise objections to the Collegium's recommendations. However, if the Collegium reiterates its decision, the appointment becomes binding.

Constitutional Basis for Judicial Appointments

1. Article 124:

   • Deals with the appointment of Supreme Court judges, stating that they must be appointed by the President in consultation with the CJI and other judges.

2. Article 217:

   • Deals with the appointment of High Court judges, stating that the President must consult the CJI, Governor, and HC Chief Justice.

3. Ad hoc Judges (Article 127):

   • Allows the CJI to request a High Court judge to sit in the Supreme Court if a quorum is not available, with the President's consent.

4. Acting CJI (Article 126):

   • If the CJI is absent or a vacancy occurs, the senior-most available SC judge is appointed as Acting CJI by the President.

5. Retired Judges (Article 128):

   • With the President’s consent, the CJI may request a retired SC judge to sit and act as a judge for a specific period.

Arguments for the Collegium System

1. Separation of Powers:

   • The system ensures the judiciary’s independence from the executive and legislature, allowing judges to perform their duties without external interference, which is vital for the separation of powers (as envisaged in Article 50).

2. Preservation of Judicial Integrity:

   • Senior judges, who are familiar with the intricacies of law, are best placed to assess the integrity, legal acumen, and suitability of potential judges.

3. Reduction of Corruption:

   • The Collegium system reduces the likelihood of corruption or undue political influence in judicial appointments, as the decision-making power lies within the judiciary.

Arguments Against the Collegium System

1. Lack of Transparency:

   • The process is often conducted in secrecy, with no clear, published criteria for judicial appointments, which can lead to accusations of nepotism or favoritism (the so-called "uncle judge syndrome").

2. Concentration of Power:

   • The system centralizes power in the hands of a few senior judges, which raises concerns about the lack of checks and balances and potential unchecked authority in judicial appointments.

3. Inequitable Representation of Communities:

   • Data reveals that a significant portion of appointments to the judiciary (especially in High Courts) comes from upper-caste backgrounds. This has led to concerns about the underrepresentation of marginalized communities, women, and other diverse social groups.

   • Women make up only 4% of the Supreme Court judges, and there have been consistent calls for gender and social diversity in judicial appointments.

4. Judicial Vacancies:

   • The Collegium system has been blamed for delays in judicial appointments, with 331 judicial vacancies reported in High Courts in 2024, leading to a backlog of cases and delays in justice delivery.

The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)

• The NJAC was a proposed constitutional body designed to replace the Collegium system, established under the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014.

• Objective: To create a transparent process based on merit for appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.

• Supreme Court's Verdict: In the Fourth Judges Case (2015), the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC as unconstitutional, arguing that it undermined judicial independence by allowing the executive more power in judicial appointments.

Conclusion

The Collegium system, despite its criticisms, is considered vital for maintaining judicial independence in India. While it has been successful in ensuring that the judiciary remains free from executive interference, there is a strong case for reform.

• The system can be strengthened by introducing greater transparency, objective criteria, and merit-based oversight.

• Addressing the concerns regarding representation, vacancies, and power concentration would help make the system more inclusive and efficient while still safeguarding judicial independence.

A balanced approach that combines the best features of the Collegium with necessary reforms may offer a more transparent, fair, and accountable judicial appointment process in India