Collegium System in India: Structure, Challenges & Judicial Reforms

Why in News?

Recently, former Solicitor General Harish Salve questioned the transparency of the judiciary in the “cash at home” case of the Delhi High Court. He called for major reforms in the judicial appointment system to enhance transparency and trust in this prestigious democratic institution.

• In response, the Supreme Court has formally initiated the in-house inquiry process established under C. Ravichandran Iyer vs Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995) 5 SCC 457.

What is the Collegium System?

The Collegium System in India is a unique mechanism for the appointment and transfer of judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts.

• It is not based on any constitutional provision or parliamentary law.
• The Collegium System was not originally part of the Constitution. It evolved through three landmark judgments of the Supreme Court, known as the “Judges’ Cases.”
• The key feature of this system is that it is entirely under the control of the judiciary. There is minimal interference from the executive, ensuring judicial independence.
• This system ensures that there is no political influence in the appointment of judges, maintaining fairness and transparency.

Structure and Functioning of the Collegium System

India’s Collegium System mainly consists of senior judges from the Supreme Court and High Courts.

• Structure:
  • The Supreme Court Collegium has five members. It includes the Chief Justice of India (CJI) as the head and four senior-most judges who participate in decision-making.
  • For High Courts, the respective High Court Collegium is responsible for the appointment and transfer of judges. It includes the Chief Justice of the High Court as the head and two senior-most judges who recommend names.
  • The Collegium recommends appointments, transfers, and promotions of judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts. These recommendations are sent to the central government, but the final decision is not possible without Collegium approval.
• Functioning:
  • Selection and Nomination: The High Court Collegium selects eligible candidates for its court. The Supreme Court Collegium nominates judges for the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
    The Collegium also plays a crucial role in transferring judges.
  • Recommendation and Review: The names proposed by the High Court Collegium are sent to the Supreme Court Collegium for review. The Supreme Court Collegium approves names based on merit, seniority, and performance and sends recommendations to the central government.
  • Role of the Government: The central government can either approve the recommendations or raise objections. If the government has objections, it can send the names back to the Collegium for reconsideration.
  • Reconsideration and Final Decision: If the Collegium stands by its earlier recommendation after reconsideration, the government is bound to accept it. The Collegium’s final decision is mandatory.
• Appointment Process:
  • The Chief Justice of India is appointed by the President. As per tradition, the senior-most judge is given priority.
  • The names of Supreme Court judges are recommended by the CJI and senior-most judges of the respective High Courts. These recommendations are sent through the Law Minister to the Prime Minister, who advises the President.
  • For the appointment of High Court Chief Justices, judges from other states are appointed. This decision is made by the Collegium after consulting the outgoing Chief Justice and two senior-most judges.
  • For appointing High Court judges, the Collegium includes the CJI and two senior-most judges. The proposal is sent through the Governor to the Law Minister, who forwards it to the central government for a final decision.

Historical Evolution of the Collegium System

• First Judges Case (1981): In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the opinion of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) would not be final in judicial appointments. The executive was given the power to reject the CJI’s recommendation on “substantial and cogent reasons.” This decision established the executive’s dominance in judicial appointments.
• Second Judges Case (1993): In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court overturned its previous decision and laid the foundation of the Collegium System. The Court clarified that “consultation” meant concurrence, not just seeking an opinion. Under this system, the CJI was required to take the help of two senior-most judges, making the decision more institutional and collective.
• Third Judges Case (1998): In response to a constitutional question raised by the President, the Supreme Court further strengthened the Collegium System. A five-member Collegium was formed, including the CJI and four senior-most judges. This decision aimed to increase participation in the decision-making process by broadening the structure of the Collegium.

Controversies and Challenges of the Collegium System

• Complete Exclusion of the Executive: The executive is completely excluded from the appointment process, making it a closed system. A few judges secretly appoint other judges, raising concerns about the selection of unsuitable candidates and the neglect of deserving ones.
• Favouritism and Nepotism: There are no fixed criteria for appointments, increasing the risk of nepotism and favouritism. This lack of transparency weakens the judicial system. Without transparency, decisions may be influenced by personal relationships and power.
• Closed-Door Mechanism: The Collegium System operates behind closed doors. There is no official record of its proceedings, leaving the public unaware of how and why decisions are made. The lack of transparency has led to increased criticism.
• Rejection of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC): In 2014, Parliament established the NJAC under the 99th Constitutional Amendment to involve the executive in judicial appointments. However, the Supreme Court struck it down, citing threats to judicial independence. This decision highlighted the need for reforms in the Collegium System.
• Lack of Accountability: There is no fixed timeline for the completion of the appointment process. Delays lead to an increase in vacant positions in courts, affecting judicial efficiency. The absence of accountability weakens public trust in judicial institutions.

The Way Forward

• Maintaining Official Records: The Collegium should maintain official records of its proceedings. The selection criteria should be clear and made public to show why a particular candidate was chosen. This will increase public trust in the judiciary.
• Independent Secretariat: An independent secretariat should assist the Collegium. It should objectively evaluate the qualifications, achievements, and background of judges.
• Limited Role for the Executive: The executive should have a limited role while maintaining judicial independence. This will ensure balance and accountability in the appointment process. This balance can be adopted in line with other democratic countries.
• Time-Bound Appointment Process: The Collegium should complete the appointment process within a fixed timeline. This will reduce the burden of pending cases in courts.
• Focus on Merit and Integrity: Collegium members should emphasize fairness and merit over mutual agreement. Institutional integrity should be prioritized over personal relationships to ensure a strong and impartial judiciary.

Explore our Books: https://apnipathshala.com/product-category/books/

Explore Our test Series: https://tests.apnipathshala.com/