Introduction
In this system, the Chief Justice of India along with senior judges of the Supreme Court decide who will be appointed as judges in the Supreme Court and the High Courts. Later, in 2014, the Parliament passed a Constitutional amendment and brought a bill to change this system of appointments.
The collegium system is a process of appointing and transfer judges of supreme court and high court. In this system the chief justice of india and senior judges propose who is eligible to be appointment as judges. It was not created by law but by the decision of supreme court.
The collegium system means judges select judges. it was started with good intention But some people say it has no clear rule and not transparent. They also say it can cause partiality and less accountability. The main idea of the collegium system is to keep judges free from politics. If the government chooses judges, it may choose them for political reason.
The main reason for giving power to the Collegium for appointment and transfer of judges and not to the government because the judiciary need to be independent and partial or judges can make decision without government pressure. If the government appoints the judges it may be choose them for political support instead of ability.
Background Of Collegium System
As the Constitution engraves an independent judiciary, to protect this independence the appointment of judges in the higher judiciary has always been a matter of great significance and debate. Currently, the appointment of judges of the High Court and Supreme Court is done through the collegium system only, but earlier the appointment of judges in the higher judiciary was done by the President of India.
Although the senior judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts recommended names for appointment, the President was not bound to accept those recommendations.
Later, the question arose in S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India (1981), also known as the First Judges Case. In this case, the Supreme Court held that consultation with judges for appointment is not the same as concurrence, and the upper hand would always remain with the President. In this case, for the first time, the word “collegium” was used, and the Court suggested that such a body should be formed for the appointment of judges.
Then, in the Second Judges Case – Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India (1993), the Court held that the final decision would rest with the Chief Justice of India (CJI), and it decided the structure of the collegium as comprising the CJI and two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
Later, in the Third Judges Case – Re: Special Reference (1999), the structure of the collegium system was redefined to include the CJI and four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, and for High Court appointments, senior judges of the respective High Courts were also to be consulted. In 2014, the legislature introduced the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, which created a new structure for the appointment of judges, giving the upper hand to the legislature in the appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
However, in the Fourth Judges Case – Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment which had created the NJAC, holding that it violated the basic structure of the Constitution, and it reaffirmed the decision of the Re: Special Reference (1999), thereby restoring the collegium system.
Principle Of Equal Access To Public Office
The Constitution of India guarantees equality before the law under Article 14 and equal opportunity in matters of public employment under Article 16. These provisions reflect the principle that every qualified citizen should have a fair chance to hold public office, including positions in the higher judiciary. The principle of “equal access to public office” demands that recruitment and appointments be free from discrimination, favoritism, and arbitrariness. It ensures that government posts, including judgeships, are treated as a public trust and are open to all citizens on the basis of merit.
Public office is an important point in the collegium system because everyone has the right to equal opportunity in issues related to public employment. In the Constitution of India, Article 16 clearly prohibits discrimination in public employment on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, or residence. It means that every qualified person should get a fair chance to be considered for public office, including the post of judges.
Violation Of Equality In Appointment
The collegium system of appointing judges is often criticized as a violation of equality. In this system, the appointment of judges is done only by senior judges of the Supreme Court, without any role for the government or the public. This creates a situation where only a small group controls the entire process. As a result, many deserving and qualified candidates do not even get a chance to be considered. There are no clear rules, examinations, or open criteria to judge merit. The process is secret, and the reasons for selecting or rejecting someone are not made public. This makes the system unfair and raises doubts about favoritism or nepotism.
The Constitution, under Article 16, guarantees equal opportunity in matters of public employment. Judges are also public officers, so every citizen should have an equal chance to reach such positions. But the collegium system works like a “closed club” where equality is not followed. Therefore, it is often said that the collegium system of appointment of judges goes against the principle of equality and fairness.
Relevent Constitutional Provision
Article 14 – Equality before Law
Guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws. Any system that works secretly or gives preference to a few violates this principle.
Article 16 – Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment
Ensures equal opportunity in matters of public employment, including judges as they hold public office. Collegium system blocks equal access because not everyone gets a fair chance.
Article 124 – Appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court
Says judges of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President after consultation with judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. Originally, the President (executive) had a major role.
Article 217 – Appointment of Judges of the High Courts
Provides that judges of High Courts are appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, Governor, and Chief Justice of the High Court concerned.
Article 50 – Separation of Judiciary from Executive (Directive Principle)
Aims to keep judiciary independent from executive interference. Collegium system was created in the name of protecting this independence.
Criticism Of Lack Of Transparency And Accountability
One of the strongest criticisms of the collegium system is that it lacks transparency and accountability. The system works in secrecy, and the reasons for appointing or rejecting a candidate are never made public. This goes against the principle of equality, as every citizen should know the basis on which important public offices like judgeships are filled.
Main criticisms are:
- Decisions are taken behind closed doors without public scrutiny.
- No written or clear criteria for selection.
- Reasons for selection or rejection are not disclosed.
- Creates chances of favoritism and nepotism.
- Judges are not accountable to anyone for their choices.
- Public confidence in the judiciary is reduced.
Thus, the collegium system is often seen as undemocratic, because appointments are not open, fair, or transparent. This is why many legal scholars argue that it goes against the principle of equality.
Suggestions
To make the process of appointment of judges more fair, equal, and transparent, some reforms can be introduced:
- Establish a Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) with judges, government representatives, and independent experts.
- Frame clear and written criteria for selection, such as merit, integrity, seniority, and performance.
- Ensure transparency by recording and publishing reasons for appointment or rejection (except in very sensitive cases).
- Promote diversity by appointing more women, people from different regions, castes, and economic backgrounds.
- Introduce some form of accountability, where decisions can be reviewed without harming judicial independence.
- Strengthen public trust by making the process open, fair, and merit-based.
Conclusion
The collegium system was created to protect the independence of the judiciary from political pressure. However, over time, it has become secretive, exclusive, and unequal. It does not follow the principle of equal access to public office under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
For a strong democracy, both judicial independence and equality are important. Therefore, reforms are needed to make the appointment process transparent, accountable, and fair. Only then can the judiciary maintain public confidence and truly reflect the spirit of justice and equality.
