Concealing a judge’s dissent, eroding judiciary’s authority , Pg6

Key Highlights:

• Justice B.V. Nagarathna dissented on the Collegium's recommendation to elevate Justice Vipul M. Pancholi to the Supreme Court.
• The Collegium's resolution uploaded on the Court’s website suggests unanimity, making no mention of the dissent.
• The Union government notified the appointment within 48 hours of the recommendation.
• The Collegium has been resistant to transparency since its inception, raising concerns about its accountability.

Detailed Insights:

• The Collegium system, created in the Second Judges Case (1993) and entrenched in the Third Judges Case (1998), vests primacy in the five senior-most SC judges to appoint members of the higher judiciary.
• The author argues that the Collegium's opacity and refusal to explain its reasoning undermine institutional legitimacy.
• Concerns about reputational harm and political pressure are used to defend the Collegium's secrecy, but the author finds these claims unconvincing.
• The author suggests that the judiciary must subject itself to the same standards of openness it demands of other branches of the state to maintain its standing.
• The judiciary plays an essential role in protecting rights against majoritarian excesses, but its legitimacy depends on the accountability of the appointment process.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Collegium System: The system by which judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed and transferred, comprising the Chief Justice of India and four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
• Transparency: The principle that government actions should be open to public scrutiny and easily accessible.
• Accountability: The obligation of public officials to be responsible for their actions and decisions.