Collegium System: Judicial Independence Debate

COLLEGIUM SYSTEM: JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND REFORM DEBATE

WHY IN THE NEWS ?

• Recent Controversy: Retired Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjay Kaul suggested that former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud may have discussed proposed judicial appointments with the Union Government before collegium deliberations.
• Key Concern: The issue has revived debates over judicial independence, executive interference, transparency and accountability in judicial appointments.

COLLEGIUM SYSTEM: EVOLUTION AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

• Article 124: Provides for the appointment of Supreme Court judges by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
• Article 217: Deals with High Court judge appointments after consultation with the CJI, High Court Chief Justice and Governor.
• First Judges Case (1981): The Supreme Court initially upheld the primacy of the executive in judicial appointments.
• Second Judges Case (1993): Established the Collegium System, giving primacy to the judiciary in appointments to protect judicial independence.
• Third Judges Case (1998): Clarified the collegium’s composition and functioning through a Presidential Reference.
• Composition: The Supreme Court collegium consists of the CJI and four senior-most judges, while High Court appointments involve the CJI and two senior-most Supreme Court judges.
• Memorandum of Procedure: The 1998 MoP provides the framework for appointments. The Centre can return recommendations for reconsideration, but reiterated recommendations are generally binding.

CHALLENGES AND REFORMS IN JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

• NJAC Amendment: The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 established the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), comprising the CJI, two senior judges, Union Law Minister and two eminent persons.
• Supreme Court Verdict: In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC, holding that it violated the basic structure doctrine, particularly judicial independence.
• Transparency Deficit: The collegium faces criticism due to limited disclosure of selection criteria and reasons behind appointments.
• Nepotism Allegations: Concerns persist regarding favouritism and preferential treatment towards relatives of sitting judges.
• Reform Proposal: Finalising the revised MoP can improve transparency, accountability and consultation in judicial appointments.
• Long-term Reform: A broader appointment mechanism involving the judiciary, legislature, Bar Council and academia could make the process more inclusive while protecting judicial independence.