End the culture of secrecy in judicial appointments, Pg8

Key Highlights:

• Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court recently emphasized greater transparency in the collegium system for judicial appointments to build public trust and ensure merit.
• The collegium system, a judicial creation, evolved through the First Judges Case (1981), Second Judges Case (1993), and Third Judges Case (1998).
• Transparency has declined, with the collegium stopping the publication of detailed reasons and names of members involved in decisions since November 28, 2024.
• Allegations of "Uncle Judges" persist, with a 2025 assessment indicating nearly 30% of Supreme Court judges had familial links to former judges.
• Unlike India, constitutional democracies such as the UK and South Africa employ more transparent judicial appointment processes, including public advertising and interviews.

Detailed Insights:

• The collegium system currently lacks public notification of vacancies, an eligibility matrix, or a defined methodology for candidate assessment.
• Fali Nariman, an architect of the collegium, later criticized its insular nature and unresponsiveness to the Bar.
• In November 2025, (then) CJI B.R. Gavai justified withholding detailed reasons, citing concerns about potential harm to candidates' career prospects.
• The Supreme Court's own MediaOne judgment (2023) declared sealed-cover secrecy "antithetical to a transparent and accountable system."
• Former CJI R.M. Lodha had previously remarked that nearly one in three High Court judges could be an "uncle."
• In 2018, the Union government flagged 11 names recommended by the Allahabad High Court collegium due to familial connections.
• In January 2025, the collegium considered barring judges' relatives but agreed only to higher scrutiny for such candidates.
• Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution guarantee equality and equal opportunity in public employment, implying a need for transparent procedures.
• The Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs Umadevi (2006) judgment mandated transparent procedures for public office appointments.
• The CPIO vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019) judgment brought the CJI's office under the Right to Information Act, a principle not applied to judicial appointments.
• Proposed reforms include publishing anticipated vacancies, inviting applications, disclosing objective eligibility criteria, and recording reasoned recommendations.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Collegium System: A system where the Chief Justice of India and a few senior-most judges of the Supreme Court recommend appointments and transfers of judges.
• First Judges Case (1981): Established the executive's primacy in judicial appointments.
• Second Judges Case (1993): Shifted primacy to the Chief Justice of India and senior judges, forming the basis of the collegium.
• Third Judges Case (1998): Expanded the collegium to its current five-member structure for Supreme Court appointments.
• Judicial Independence: The principle that the judiciary should be free from interference from the executive and legislative branches of government.
• Right to Information Act (2005): An act that mandates timely response to citizen requests for government information.
• Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution: Guarantee equality before the law and equality of opportunity in matters of public employment, respectively.