"Calls grow to end opacity in Supreme Court collegium appointments"
Collegium System
A judge-made mechanism where the CJI and four senior Supreme Court judges collectively recommend judicial appointments.
Basic Structure Doctrine
Constitutional principle that certain features of the Constitution cannot be amended by Parliament, established in Kesavananda Bharati (1973).
The appointment of judges to India's Supreme Court and High Courts is governed by Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution, which vest the formal power of appointment in the President. The Constitution's framers envisioned a consultative process involving the executive and the judiciary, believing that keeping the legislature out of appointments would insulate the judiciary from partisan politics. However, the precise weight to be given to the Chief Justice's opinion was left undefined, creating a constitutional ambiguity that the Supreme Court itself resolved through a series of landmark judgments.
The First Judges Case (S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981) held that the President was not bound by the Chief Justice's recommendation, giving the executive primacy. This was reversed by the Second Judges Case (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, 1993), which shifted primacy to the collective opinion of the Chief Justice and senior judges. The Third Judges Case (In re Special Reference, 1998) further refined this into the current five-member collegium comprising the Chief Justice of India and the four most senior judges of the Supreme Court. This judge-made architecture has no explicit textual basis in the Constitution; it rests entirely on judicial interpretation of the word 'consultation' in Articles 124 and 217.
The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014, and the 99th Constitutional Amendment sought to replace the collegium with a six-member body including the Law Minister and two eminent persons. The Supreme Court struck down both in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), holding that the NJAC violated the basic structure of the Constitution by compromising judicial independence. The collegium thus remains the sole mechanism for judicial appointments, but the NJAC judgment itself acknowledged that the collegium needed reform.
The collegium system operates without a published vacancy notification, a defined eligibility matrix, or a disclosed methodology for evaluating candidates. Resolutions recommending elevations were briefly published with brief reasons from October 2017 onward, but this practice has since been reversed. Since November 2024, resolutions no longer name which collegium members participated in a decision or provide any reasoning. This retreat from even minimal disclosure is significant: it means that neither the legal community nor the public can assess whether merit, seniority, or other considerations drove a particular appointment.
The opacity has fuelled concerns about 'Uncle Judges', a term for the alleged easier passage of relatives of sitting or retired judges to the Bench. A government assessment in 2018 flagged 11 of 33 names recommended by the Allahabad High Court collegium as relatives of sitting or retired judges. A broader assessment in 2025 found that roughly 30% of Supreme Court judges had familial links to former judges. …
Consider the following statements:
1.The 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India introduced an Article placing the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial review.
2.The Supreme Court of India struck down the 99th Amendment to the Constitution of India as being violative of the independence of judiciary.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
With reference to Indian judiciary, consider the following statements:
1.Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with prior permission of the President of India.
2.In India, any High Court has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Discuss the evolution of collegium system in India. Critically examine the advantages and disadvantages of the system of appointment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India and that of the USA.
Judicial Legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Indian Constitution. In this context justify the filing of large number of public interest petitions praying for issuing guidelines to executive authorities.
Consider the following statements regarding the collegium system of judicial appointments in India:
1.The collegium system has explicit textual basis in Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution.
2.The Second Judges Case (1993) shifted primacy in judicial appointments from the executive to the collective opinion of the Chief Justice of India and senior judges.
3.The Supreme Court struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment in 2015 on the ground that it violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
4.The Chief Justice of India's office was held to fall within the Right to Information Act in CPIO v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal.
How many of the above statements are correct?
With reference to the evolution of judicial appointments in India, match the following:
List I (Case/Event) — List II (Key Outcome)
A.First Judges Case (1981) — 1. Five-member collegium formalised
B.Second Judges Case (1993) — 2. Executive primacy in appointments established
C.Third Judges Case (1998) — 3. Collective opinion of CJI and senior judges given primacy
D.NJAC judgment (2015) — 4. 99th Amendment struck down as violating basic structure
Select the correct answer:
Consider the following statements regarding transparency in India's collegium system:
1.The MediaOne judgment (2023) held that sealed-cover secrecy is antithetical to a transparent and accountable system.
2.In CPIO v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019), the Supreme Court held that the Chief Justice of India's office falls within the Right to Information Act.
3.The collegium began publishing resolutions with brief reasons for elevation in October 2017 and has continued this practice without interruption.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Which of the following constitutional provisions are directly relevant to the argument that judicial appointments in India should follow a transparent and procedurally fair process?
1.Article 14 — Right to equality before law
2.Article 16 — Equality of opportunity in public employment
3.Article 32 — Right to constitutional remedies
4.Article 124 — Establishment and constitution of the Supreme Court
Select the correct answer using the codes below:
Assertion (A): The Supreme Court struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) in 2015 as unconstitutional.
Reason (R): The NJAC violated the basic structure of the Constitution by giving the executive a structural role in judicial appointments that threatened judicial independence.
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account