The Collegium Conundrum—Revamping the Judiciary

Introduction

As one of the three essential organs of the Government, the judiciary performs its role splendidly by upholding constitutional values and keeping the executive within the bounds of law, basically acting as the “watchdog” of democracy. However, an imperative question persists: if doubts are cast upon the integrity of that watchdog itself, then who ensures its accountability? To recognize the esteemed independence of the judiciary, no other organ intervenes when it comes to the appointment process of judges in India, which is a subject of intense debate. The collegium system, which is responsible for judicial appointments in India, has been an object of constant criticism, raising concerns over its transparency, accountability, and quality of judicial administration. 

The Collegium system – evolution and criticism 

The Collegium system might be summed up as "to the judges, by the judges, for the judges." After all, the system has come into existence and evolved over time due to judicial decisions. It originated in 1981 with the case S.P. Gupta v. Union of India and Others—also called the First Judges Case—where the Supreme Court's verdict gave priority to the executive's decision regarding judicial appointments.

This continued until 1993, when the Supreme Court, in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India—also called the Second Judges Case—overruled the previous judgment and ruled that the Chief Justice of India's (CJI) advice regarding the appointment of judges is binding on the executive. This ensured the supremacy of the judiciary in matters of judicial appointments. However, this process was to be conducted only after consultation with the senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, forming the body known as the "Collegium."

The role of the Collegium in appointing judges was further reinforced in In Re Presidential Reference of 1998—also called the Third Judges Case—where the number of judges in the Collegium was increased to four.

However, this system has faced severe criticism, some of which may hold merit. While the judiciary exists to check the autocracy of the executive, a system with negligible accountability could potentially lead to the judiciary itself becoming autocratic. Not to mention the "Uncle Judges" syndrome, referring to judges appointing their kin, which further undermines meritocracy in the judiciary and reeks of nepotism within the institution.

Possible Solutions 

The ongoing tussle between the judiciary and the executive won’t lead to a utopian solution for the shortcomings of the judicial system. The Indian government sought to introduce a new mechanism for judicial appointments in response to this. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was established through the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, and the NJAC Act, 2014, which was designed as a body comprising representatives from the judiciary, the executive, and eminent personalities to be a beacon of transparency and accountability in the appointment process. The NJAC was primarily established to address the principal flaws of the judiciary by replacing the Collegium system until it was struck down by the Supreme Court, laying down the act and amendment as unconstitutional on the ground that it hinders the independence of the judiciary. The majority opinion held that this act compromised the constitutional provisions of the separation of powers by including the executive in the judicial appointment process. 

But the dire need for reforms in the collegium system prevails anyway. With sitting judges holding an unchecked monopoly over judicial appointments, the collegium system can be seen teetering on the edge of unsustainability. Balancing judicial independence along with transparency and inclusivity, certain reform proposals might be handy in the long term. A secretariat to assist in collecting information and running background checks, defining absolute standards for eligibility with adequate representation of diverse sections of society, and creating a formal channel for public complaints regarding the appointments can help ensure a structured and transparent procedure. 

Conclusion

The judiciary, among the three organs of the government, is the one that actually acts as the rescuer of the citizens, safeguards their rights, and ensures justice. It also enjoys a lot of trust from the people of India—something that cannot be said about the other two organs, the legislature and the executive. However, this trust is contingent upon the assumption that the judiciary is not marred by inefficiencies in the way the executive and legislature are. However, the way things are prevailing under the Collegium system, it can end up seriously eroding public faith in the judiciary, which is bound to have a negative effect on the judiciary.

The article does not intend to advocate for complete oversight of judicial appointments by the executive. It is absolutely necessary that the judiciary remains completely independent. However, a balance certainly needs to be struck. It is high time we ensure measures that mitigate the problem while also ensuring complete separation of powers.

This article is authored by Shreya Singh. She was among the Top 40 performers in the Quiz Competition on Mergers and Acquisitions organized by Lets Learn Law.