It is an entirely novel structure designed to guarantee a democratic process for the appointment and removal of judges. The Collegium System of India was developed over time by the decisions in the Second and Third Judges’ cases. No legislative or constitutional provision mentions or defines the Collegium System. This committee, led by the Chief Justice of India, is made up of four other senior judges from the court. The collegium is led by the Chief Justice (CJ) and the remaining four most senior justices of a High Court.
A crucial part of India’s democratic system is the judiciary, which is supported by the Collegium, an institution that is vital to the appointment and removal of justices from the Supreme Court and High Courts. A number of incidents in recent years have fuelled criticism of this system, exposing both its perceived virtues and faults.
Evolution of the Collegium System: A Journey towards Judicial Independence
A sequence of historic rulings intended to preserve judicial independence gave rise to the Collegium System, a distinctive aspect of the Indian judiciary. The way it has evolved is a reflection of the judiciary’s attempts to remain independent and morally sound in the face of possible governmental influence. The development of the Collegium System is examined in more detail below:
The Judges’ First Case (1981)
S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India (1981), often known as the First Judges’ Case, is credited with providing the impetus for the Collegium System. The Chief Justice of India’s (CJI) recommendation was not legally binding in this case, according to the Supreme Court, which held that the President of India has “primacy” over the selection of judges. Concerns about possible meddling and a lack of judicial independence were raised by this decision, which essentially handed the President substantial authority over Judge nominations.
The Judges’ Second Case (1993)
With the Second Judges’ Case, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India [1993] AIR 645, a major change took place. The Supreme Court reversed its previous ruling in this historic ruling, holding that the CJI ought to have “primacy” over other justices when it comes to appointing new justices. The decision highlighted the need for the CJI’s suggestions to be discussed with a collegium composed of the two senior most Supreme Court judges. This ruling established the Collegium System, which aims to minimize executive intervention and safeguard the independence of the court.
The Third Judges’ Case (1998)
The Collegium System was improved upon in the Third Judges’ Case, sometimes referred to as in re Presidential Reference [1998] 7 SCC 1. The CJI and the four senior-most Supreme Court Judges were added to the Collegium by the Court in response to a presidential reference. The Collegium’s role in judicial appointments and transfers was reaffirmed by this judgment, which also explained the consultative process. By ensuring a wider consensus within the judiciary, the extension aims to improve the process’s transparency and legitimacy.
Constitutional Foundations of India’s Collegium System
The Indian Constitution, approved in 1950, establishes the Supreme Court and the High Courts, but it makes no express reference to the Collegium system. The important articles for judicial nominations are:
Article 124 of the Constitution of India: The President appoints Supreme Court judges in conjunction with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and other judges.
Article 217 of the Constitution of India: Addresses the President’s appointment of High Court Judges in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the state, and, if a Judge other than the Chief Justice is appointed, the Chief Justice of a High Court.
Criticism of the Collegium System: Transparency, Accountability, and Judicial Independence
- Absence of Transparency
An important critique levelled against the Collegium system is its lack of transparency. Judge nomination and transfer procedures take place behind closed doors, and the standards and reasoning for judgments are never made public. Concerns concerning the impartiality and fairness of the system are raised by this lack of openness. It is challenging to determine whether decisions are motivated by merit or other considerations in the absence of precise, openly accessible rules.
- Claim of Favouritism and Nepotism
Nepotism and favouritism, according to critics, might result from the Collegium System’s lack of accountability and openness. Allegations have been made that personal relationships or factors other than merit occasionally affect appointments and transfers. The public’s confidence in the courts is weakened by this view, which also may have an impact on the officers’ morale.
Arguments in Favour of the Collegium System: Safeguarding Judicial Independence
- Judges’ Independence
The Collegium system’s guarantee of judicial independence is among its strongest justifications. The Collegium system helps prevent political meddling by giving senior judges, not the executive branch, the authority to make judicial nominations and transfers. Maintaining an unbiased judiciary that is able to make decisions free from outside pressures depends on this division.
- Shielding Against Political Pressures
It is believed that the Collegium System protects the judiciary from political pressure. Judges may be appointed more on the basis of their political allegiances or affiliations than their qualifications in nations where the president plays a major role in judicial nominations. Because the Collegium System retains the appointment process inside the judiciary, it reduces this risk.
The Rise and fall of National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC): A Quest for Transparent Judicial Appointments
The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014, and the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act were passed in 2014 in order to create the NJAC. There has been a lot of criticism regarding the Collegium System, so there were certain provisions made to correct these flaws. These legislative actions established the NJAC’s legal foundation, formally substituting this new commission for the Collegium System. The NJAC encountered strong opposition despite its promising framework, especially from the court.
The Union Minister and other notable individuals were included, according to critics, which may have compromised judicial independence and given the administration undue control over the recruitment process. One of the main tenets of India’s democracy is the separation of powers, which was thought to be threatened by the NJAC.
Conclusion
The Collegium System was supposed to maintain judicial independence by limiting executive influence in judge recruitment and transfer. However, its lack of openness, accountability, and efficiency, combined with suspicions of nepotism and opposition to reform, has sparked widespread criticism. To overcome these challenges, there is a growing belief that the Collegium System must change. Potential reforms include developing clear and transparent appointment standards, incorporating a wider range of stakeholders in decision-making, and strengthening accountability systems to ensure fair and merit-based judge selections. Implementing these reforms will be critical to sustaining public trust and ensuring the judiciary’s integrity and effectiveness.
