๐ Judicial Appointments โ End the Culture of Secrecy ๐ Why in News? ๐ข The debate over transparency in judicial appointments has resurfaced after Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that greater openness in the collegium process could strengthen public confidence and ensure merit remains the governing principle. ๐ Collegium System ๐ข The collegium is a judicial creation, not a constitutional provision. ๐ข First Judges Case (1981): Gave primacy to the executive in judicial appointments. ๐ข Second Judges Case (1993): Shifted primacy to the CJI and senior judges. ๐ข Third Judges Case (1998): Expanded the system into the present five-member Supreme Court collegium. ๐ Concerns over Transparency ๐ข The collegium process has historically lacked public notification of vacancies, a clear eligibility matrix and a transparent methodology for assessing candidates. ๐ข Since November 2024, collegium resolutions have reportedly stopped naming participating judges or disclosing detailed reasoning for decisions. ๐ข This has revived concerns regarding accountability and public confidence. ๐ โUncle Judgesโ & Nepotism Concerns ๐ข Allegations have emerged regarding the selection of relatives of sitting and retired judges. ๐ข In 2018, the Union government flagged that 11 of 33 names recommended by the Allahabad High Court collegium were relatives of sitting or retired judges. ๐ข A 2025 assessment cited in the article found that around 30% of Supreme Court judges had familial links to former judges. ๐ Constitutional Dimension ๐ข Articles 14 and 16 guarantee equality and equal opportunity in public employment. ๐ข The Supreme Court has held that appointments to public office cannot be made through backdoor methods and should ordinarily follow transparent procedures. ๐ Right to Information & Judicial Appointments ๐ข In CPIO v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019), the Supreme Court held that the CJIโs office falls within the Right to Information Act framework. ๐ข This strengthens the argument that judicial independence need not imply complete institutional secrecy. ๐ International Practices ๐ข United Kingdom: Judicial Appointments Commission publicly advertises vacancies and conducts structured interviews. ๐ข South Africa: Judicial Service Commission invites nominations publicly and conducts televised interviews. ๐ข These examples suggest that transparency and judicial independence can coexist. ๐ Way Forward โ Reform, Not Retreat ๐ข Publish anticipated vacancies and invite applications from eligible candidates. ๐ข Establish objective eligibility and evaluation criteria. ๐ข Record and disclose reasoned recommendations while protecting genuinely sensitive inputs. ๐ข Introduce greater scrutiny where candidates have familial links with judges. ๐ข Ensure transparency strengthens, rather than compromises, judicial independence. ๐ Core Issue: ๐ข The objective should not be to replace the collegium but to modernise it through greater transparency, reasoned decision-making and institutional accountability. ๐ฏ Mains Question: โJudicial independence and institutional transparency are complementary, not contradictory.โ Discuss in the context of the collegium system of judicial appointments in India. (15 marks, 250 words) #Polity
2
1
