Judicial Accountability and Reforms in the Collegium System
The judiciary has long stood as the guardian of India’s democracy, often stepping in when other institutions faltered. Its independence is central to the idea of justice. Yet today, questions of accountability and transparency in the judicial appointments process are growing louder. The debate over the Collegium System has become not just a legal issue, but a test of how India balances independence with responsibility.
The Collegium System — evolved through a series of Supreme Court judgments — empowers senior judges to recommend names for appointments and transfers in the higher judiciary. This model was meant to protect the judiciary from executive interference. However, in practice, it has drawn criticism for being opaque, exclusive, and lacking in institutional checks.
No formal criteria exist for the selection of judges. The process happens behind closed doors, with no publicly available reasons for why certain names are chosen and others are not. The result is an air of mystery that undermines public confidence in one of the country’s most powerful institutions. Critics argue that the system has, over time, fostered perceptions of nepotism and favouritism, something that strikes at the heart of judicial credibility.
The attempt to reform this process through the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) in 2014 was a bold, though controversial, move. The NJAC sought to include members from the executive and civil society alongside judges, introducing a measure of transparency and broader participation. But in 2015, the Supreme Court struck it down, holding that it infringed upon judicial independence — a cornerstone of the Constitution.
While the fear of executive interference is real, so too is the concern that unchecked judicial power can lead to institutional insulation. Independence should not be confused with immunity. Every arm of the State — legislature, executive, or judiciary — must ultimately be answerable to the people. Judicial independence cannot be preserved by secrecy; it must be strengthened through openness.
Reform, therefore, is not about dismantling the collegium, but about improving it from within. Several measures can make the system more accountable without compromising independence. The collegium could, for instance, make public the broad criteria it applies while evaluating candidates — such as merit, integrity, seniority, and diversity. Even a short note explaining the reasons for selection or rejection would enhance trust.
Moreover, the creation of a permanent secretariat to assist the collegium could bring greater consistency and record-keeping to the process. Such an institution could collect inputs from a range of credible sources, reducing dependence on informal channels or personal knowledge. Importantly, these reforms would not dilute judicial independence but rather institutionalise it, making the process more professional and less personality-driven.
Transparency is not the enemy of independence; it is its strongest ally. The judiciary’s moral authority rests not only on its verdicts but also on the integrity of its functioning. When decisions about appointments are seen as fair, public faith in the judiciary deepens. But when they are shrouded in secrecy, suspicion grows.
India’s judiciary has earned its respect through courage and constitutional vision. Yet, like all institutions, it must evolve with time. Reforming the collegium system is not an attack on the judiciary — it is a step towards strengthening democracy.
The judiciary’s independence must remain absolute, but so must its accountability. The answer lies not in confrontation between institutions but in cooperation — in building a process that is independent, transparent, and worthy of the public’s trust.
Ultimately, justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done — even in the making of judges themselves.
