India's collegium system governs the appointment and transfer of judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts. It is not based on constitutional text but has evolved through landmark judicial pronouncements.

Unlike the Indian system, the US model is rooted in executive nomination and legislative confirmation. Both aim to balance judicial independence with accountability, but through very different mechanisms.

Evolution of the Collegium System in India

• First Judges Case (1981): Upheld executive primacy in appointments; consultation with the CJI did not mean concurrence.
• Second Judges Case (1993): Shifted to judicial primacy; created the collegium system, making the CJI’s opinion binding after consulting two senior-most judges.
• Third Judges Case (1998): Formalized the current collegium—CJI + four senior-most SC judges for Supreme Court appointments.
• NJAC Verdict (2015): Struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission, reaffirming collegium supremacy on grounds of protecting judicial independence.

Constitutional Provisions for Judicial Appointments

• Article 124: SC judges appointed by the President after consultation with CJI and other judges deemed necessary.
• Article 217: HC judges appointed by the President after consultation with the CJI, Governor of the state, and Chief Justice of the High Court concerned.

Advantages of Indian and US Systems

• Judicial Independence (India): Prevents executive dominance, shielding judges from political pressures.
• Merit-based Selection (India): Seniority and legal expertise guide choices rather than political considerations.
• Constitutional Safeguard (India): Protects separation of powers as part of the basic structure doctrine.
• Institutional Memory (India): Senior judges bring deep knowledge of judicial requirements.
• Democratic Accountability (USA): Presidential nomination with Senate confirmation ensures public participation.
• Transparency (USA): Public Senate hearings allow scrutiny of candidates’ philosophy and competence.
• Checks and Balances (USA): Executive and legislature share responsibility, preventing concentration of power.
• Broader Representation (USA): Political process can consider social diversity beyond legal merit.

Disadvantages of Indian and US Systems

• Lack of Transparency (India): Closed-door decisions without public reasoning.
• Self-perpetuation (India): “Judges appointing judges” raises accountability concerns and allegations of nepotism.
• Delayed Appointments (India): Frequent vacancies due to slow decision-making.
• Limited Diversity (India): Women and minorities remain underrepresented (only ~11% women in SC as of 2024).
• Politicisation (USA): Appointments often reflect party ideology, threatening neutrality.
• Confirmation Delays (USA): Senate obstruction can leave seats vacant for years.
• Ideological Bias (USA): Judicial merit overshadowed by political leanings.
• Public Polarisation (USA): High-profile confirmations like Brett Kavanaugh (2018) divided public opinion and dented credibility.

India’s collegium system prioritises autonomy of the judiciary but often lacks transparency, while the US model ensures democratic participation but risks politicisation. A comparative view shows India needs reforms for openness and diversity, whereas the US must address partisanship in confirmations.