Top News

On Saturday (August 1) at an event, Justice Bhuyan made a plea for greater public scrutiny of those being considered for judgeship. “To prevent entry of such people, there should be discussion, there should be some reasons given. What harm is caused if there is some discussion in the public about that these are the people who will be judges in our country?” he asked.

Need for greater transparency

Speaking at an event organised by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy for the release of a report titled “The Judicial Transparency Index”, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan strongly advocated for greater transparency and public disclosure regarding the reasons behind judicial appointments and transfers made by the Collegium.

He strongly argued that the Collegium must explain the reasoning behind its judicial recommendations, questioning why these crucial appointments should be hidden from informed public debate. He emphasised that transparency is vital for preserving constitutional values and honouring merit within the judiciary.

Also read: What Justice Bhuyan’s remarks on judicial transfers reveal about state of judicial independence

Justice Bhuyan noted that a lack of transparency in judicial selections could lead to individuals entering the judiciary who might later make highly controversial, inappropriate, or dehumanising remarks, such as referring to a group of people as “ants”, and “get away with it.” He condemned such statements as being “completely unconstitutional.”

Further, he pointed out that while courts have successfully embraced transparency in their adjudicatory functions (like live-streaming court proceedings), they remain deeply cautious and opaque about their institutional and constitutive processes. He argued that citizens have a fundamental right to know who their judges will be, the discussion surrounding their appointments, and the kind of judgments they have previously delivered.

Accountability missing

Justice Bhuyan also raised the broader question of accountability within the judiciary.

“Every legal system that claims to administer justice rather than merely dispense power must answer an old and uncomfortable question: who watches the watchmen?” he said.

Justice Bhuyan specifically questioned the lack of explanations in three Supreme Court Collegium resolutions from 2025, contrasting them with older resolutions that provided detailed reasonings.

He concluded by quoting a past Constitution Bench judgment under the RTI Act, reiterating that “judicial independence cannot be used as a byword for avoiding accountability.”

Also read: 8,630 complaints against Indian judges in 10 years, outcomes undisclosed

To prevent the elevation of individuals whose ideologies conflict with the Constitution, Justice Bhuyan insisted that open discussion is necessary. He urged that the institutional processes be backed by clear explanations, asking, “What harm is caused if there is informed public debate on such decisions?”

SC’s collegium system

The Supreme Court Collegium system remains one of the most intensely debated aspects of India’s judiciary, acting as a frequent point of friction between the judicial and executive branches of government.

Under this mechanism, a forum composed of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the senior-most judges of the Supreme Court recommends the appointment, elevation, and transfer of judges to the higher judiciary. While the executive government can ask the Collegium to reconsider a recommendation, its ultimate role in the final selection process is strictly limited.

For a long time, critics have long argued that the Collegium operates with a distinct lack of transparency. There is minimal public information regarding why specific candidates are selected, rejected, or deferred. Furthermore, critics frequently point out the absence of clearly codified, publicly accessible criteria to govern these high-level appointments.

Also read: Collegium system is law of the land: SC pulls up govt again on judges’ appts

Conversely, the judiciary steadfastly defends the system as an essential safeguard for judicial independence. Proponents argue it is necessary to insulate the appointment process from political influence and executive interference.

Reform efforts

This structural divide has led to repeated standoffs like in the case of the NJAC conflict.

In a major bid for reform, Parliament attempted to replace the Collegium with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). However, the Supreme Court struck down the law in 2015, ruling that it unconstitutionally compromised the independence of the judiciary.

DY Chandrachud defends system

Recognising the criticism, former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud defended the system in 2024, noting that active efforts were being made to improve internal transparency. He told PTI that while the system is easy to criticise, the Collegium works diligently to ensure rigorous, structured consultation before any judicial appointment is finalised.