Collegium System vs National Judicial Appointments Commission: A Need for Transparency and Accountability

The Collegium System in India has been a topic of debate and controversy since its inception.

- DR. S. KRISHNAN & LAKSHAY KUMAR

Proponents argue that it ensures the independence of the judiciary and prevents political interference in the appointment and transfer of judges, while critics argue that it is undemocratic and lacks transparency. The foundation of the Indian democratic system is the judiciary's independence, which serves as a check on the power of the executive and legislative departments. Upholding this independence depends on the appointment and promotion of judges. The appointment and transfer of judges in India's higher judiciary are governed by the Collegium System. The Collegium system, which was established by judicial interpretation rather than by statute or constitutional language, has generated a lot of discussion, particularly in relation to accountability, transparency, and institutional integrity. This article explores the collegium system's development, legal underpinnings, operation, and efficacy while critically evaluating its advantages and disadvantages.

EVOLUTION AND LEGAL BASIS OF THE COLLEGIUM SYSTEM

Articles 124 and 217 of the Indian Constitution initially called for the Executive and the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to consult before appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively. However, the Three Judges Cases significantly altered the definition and application of the term "consultation." Since the Supreme Court ruled that "consultation" does not equate to "concurrence," the executive branch has precedence over the judiciary when it comes to appointing judges. The Court established the Collegium System and granted the judiciary precedence in appointments after overturning the First Judges Case. It decided that the CJI's recommendation, which was issued after consulting with the two most senior judges, would take precedence.

The Supreme Court increased the number of members in the collegium to five for the Supreme Court and three for High Courts. It also established specific procedural guidelines.