{"id":370440,"date":"2026-08-26T21:49:36","date_gmt":"2026-08-26T16:19:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/?p=370440"},"modified":"2026-08-26T21:49:36","modified_gmt":"2026-08-26T16:19:36","slug":"end-the-culture-of-secrecy-in-judicial-appointments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/end-the-culture-of-secrecy-in-judicial-appointments\/","title":{"rendered":"End the Culture of Secrecy in Judicial Appointments"},"content":{"rendered":"

UPSC Syllabus: Gs Paper 2- <\/strong>Judiciary<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The Collegium system was developed to protect judicial independence<\/strong> from executive interference. However, its functioning has raised concerns over secrecy, unclear selection criteria and the absence of publicly intelligible reasons <\/strong>for important decisions. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s recent observations have renewed this debate. The central challenge is to preserve legitimate confidentiality while ensuring that judicial appointments follow a process that is transparent, fair, objective and accountable<\/strong>, thereby strengthening public confidence in the judiciary.<\/p>\n

Evolution of the Collegium System<\/strong><\/h2>\n
    \n
  1. Constitutional basis: <\/strong>The Constitution does not expressly use or provide for a Collegium system.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
      \n
    • However, Articles 124 and 217 govern the appointment of Supreme Court and High Court judges, while Article 222 deals with the transfer of High Court judges.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
        \n
      1. First Judges Case, 1981: <\/strong>The Court held that consultation did not mean concurrence, giving the Executive primacy in judicial appointments.<\/li>\n
      2. Second Judges Case, 1993: <\/strong>A nine-judge Bench shifted primacy to the collective opinion of the Chief Justice of India and senior judges.<\/li>\n
      3. Third Judges Case, 1998: <\/strong>The Court expanded and clarified the Collegium system. For Supreme Court appointments and High Court transfers, the Chief Justice of India consults the four senior-most puisne judges.<\/li>\n
      4. National Judicial Appointments Commission: <\/strong>The Ninety-Ninth Constitutional Amendment created the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to replace the Collegium system for judicial appointments.<\/li>\n
      5. National Judicial Appointments Commission judgment: <\/strong>In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the Ninety-Ninth Constitutional Amendment and the NJAC, holding that the proposed system threatened judicial independence, which forms part of the basic structure.<\/li>\n
      6. Concerns despite judicial primacy: <\/strong>The judgment also recognised concerns about the Collegium’s transparency, accountability and objectivity, showing that judicial primacy does not make the appointment process free from shortcomings.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Why Greater Transparency is Needed in Judicial Appointments<\/strong><\/h2>\n
          \n
        1. Lack of a clear selection framework: <\/strong>The process has no publicly known system for notifying vacancies, defining eligibility or assessing candidates.<\/li>\n
        2. Declining disclosure of reasons: <\/strong>In October 2017, the Collegium began publishing its resolutions along with brief reasons for recommending candidates for elevation.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n