The Collegium system, though aimed at preserving judicial independence, has faced numerous challenges, including delays in appointments, lack of transparency, and allegations of favouritism. Key data points, such as judicial vacancies and public opinion, indicate that while the Collegium system has succeeded in some aspects, it remains under scrutiny. The ongoing debate about reforming the system through initiatives like NJAC and greater transparency reflects the need for balanced judicial accountability alongside judicial independence. Reforms must address these concerns if the system is to retain public trust and ensure the timely and efficient delivery of justice.

Panchkula (AJRI): The Collegium system of judicial appointments in India is a mechanism for the appointment and transfer of judges to the higher judiciary, established by the Supreme Court in the early 1990s.

This system emerged from the interpretation of the Constitution, particularly after a series of judgments. Its formation can be traced to the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993), also known as the Second Judges Case, where the Court held that the judiciary should have primacy in judicial appointments, setting the foundation for the Collegium system.

The system was further refined in the Third Judges Case (1998), where it was clarified that a Collegium of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and four senior-most judges should recommend judicial appointments.

Since the Collegium system came into effect in the early 1990s, there has been a noticeable increase in judicial vacancies in India. As of 2023, there were around 400 vacancies in the High Courts alone, and more than 30% of positions in many High Courts were vacant. This is indicative of the delays in appointments that have been a consistent problem under the system. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was proposed to address this issue by accelerating the process.

In 2021, it was reported that the Supreme Court Collegium recommended 126 appointments to High Courts, but only 60 appointments were made by the government. A significant number of recommendations remained pending for months, highlighting the gap between judicial appointments and the government's action on those recommendations.

Analysis of Case Law:

Second Judges Case (1993): The 1993 Second Judges Case fundamentally altered the balance of power in judicial appointments. The case established that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Collegium of Senior Judges should have the primary say in judicial appointments. This case was based on the interpretation of the Constitution—Article 124(2)—which originally gave the executive a prominent role in judicial appointments.

Data Impact: Following this judgment, over 80% of appointments to the higher judiciary were solely in the hands of the Collegium. This shift signified an increased judicial monopoly over judicial appointments. The decision was critical because it led to the judicialization of appointments, excluding the role of the executive.

Third Judges Case (1998): The Third Judges Case further expanded the Collegium system by formalizing the process that it should be a group of the CJI and four senior-most judges, ensuring that more than one judge was involved in the decision-making process.

Data Impact: The average number of recommendations in the years after this case grew to over 100 judicial appointments per year, illustrating the increasing burden on the Collegium as the judiciary expanded.

NJAC Case (2015): The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, passed by Parliament in 2014, sought to create a six-member body consisting of the CJI, two other senior judges, the Union Law Minister, and two eminent citizens. However, the Supreme Court declared the NJAC unconstitutional in a 5-0 ruling (2015), arguing that it undermined judicial independence.

Data Impact: Despite the NJAC’s enactment and its public support, the Supreme Court's ruling kept the Collegium system in place. A major point of contention in the NJAC decision was the overwhelming role of the judiciary, as the executive and legislative branches would have had less influence in judicial appointments.

3. Public Opinion and Transparency Issues:

A 2016 study by the Centre for Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) revealed that 65% of respondents believed the process of judicial appointments was opaque and non-transparent. Moreover, 70% of respondents favoured some form of government involvement in the process. This public sentiment underscores the widespread perception of the system as undemocratic and elitist.

In the same study, 80% of legal professionals argued that the Collegium process was opaque, with no clear criteria for appointments or rejections. This lack of transparency was seen as one of the major flaws that fueled criticism of the Collegium.

4. Nepotism and Bias Allegations:

Several high-profile cases have fueled allegations of nepotism and favoritism in judicial appointments:

The appointment of Justice S. Muralidhar to the Delhi High Court, despite strong objections from the Union Government, raised questions about the Collegium’s functioning. Justice Muralidhar was known for his rulings against the government, such as on the controversial anti-CAA protests.

The appointment of Justice Indu Malhotra as the first woman judge from the bar to be directly appointed to the Supreme Court was widely praised but also led to debates about whether such appointments are influenced by non-legal considerations.

A 2017 study by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy found that 5% of all appointments to the Supreme Court were family-linked, highlighting the potential for conflicts of interest in judicial appointments. The study also indicated that 8% of appointments to High Courts involved individuals with political connections.

5. Recommendations vs. Government Action:

According to the Supreme Court’s Annual Reports on Judicial Appointments, only about 50-60% of the recommendations made by the Collegium were approved within a reasonable timeframe. The Supreme Court’s Judicial Appointments Review Committee (JARC), which has been in place since 2019, has raised concerns about political interference, with the government sitting on the recommendations for months or even years.

For instance, in 2021, the Collegium recommended 17 judges for the Supreme Court, but only 5 were appointed by the government within a year, and the rest remained under review. This delay in government action is part of the ongoing criticism of the system, where the executive branch's reluctance to clear judicial appointments is seen as problematic.

6. Performance of the Judiciary Post-Collegium:

Case Backlog: The Indian judiciary continues to face a massive backlog of cases. As of 2023, the Supreme Court had 70,000 pending cases, and High Courts collectively had around 4.5 million pending cases. The lack of adequate judicial appointments to fill vacancies in the High Courts is one of the contributors to this issue.

Efficiency and Workload: Despite its best efforts, the Collegium system has struggled to maintain the efficiency of the judiciary. According to annual reports, courts are overburdened, and the growing number of cases has led to increased delays in justice delivery. In 2018, the Delhi High Court had more than 1,000 vacancies, with similar situations in states like Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Karnataka.

Conclusion

The Collegium system, though aimed at preserving judicial independence, has faced numerous challenges, including delays in appointments, lack of transparency, and allegations of favoritism. Key data points, such as judicial vacancies and public opinion, indicate that while the Collegium system has succeeded in some aspects, it remains under scrutiny. The ongoing debate about reforming the system through initiatives like NJAC and greater transparency reflects the need for balanced judicial accountability alongside judicial independence. Reforms must address these concerns if the system is to retain public trust and ensure the timely and efficient delivery of justice.