Collegium system

Also called: Collegium · Topic: Judiciary: Independence, Structure, Judicial Review and Activism · NCERT: Class 11, Ch 6 "Judiciary"

Meaning

The collegium system is the way judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are chosen and transferred in India. A group of the senior-most Supreme Court judges, led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), recommends the names, and the government is mostly bound to act on them. It began with the Second Judges case (1993) and took its present shape in the Third Judges case (1998).

It matters because it decides who sits on the higher courts. It is the main way India keeps the government from choosing judges who will simply agree with it. Its critics say it is a closed system in which "judges choose judges".

Explanation

Who sits in the collegium

• For Supreme Court appointments: the CJI and the 4 senior-most Supreme Court judges. The 1993 ruling had said the CJI plus 2 judges, and PRS describes the 1998 change as "slightly modified" from two judges to four [3].
• For High Court appointments and transfers: the CJI and the 2 senior-most Supreme Court judges.
• High Court collegium: the Chief Justice of the High Court and its 2 senior-most puisne judges. A puisne judge is any judge other than the Chief Justice. This body starts the process for High Court judges.
• Trap: the word "collegium" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. It comes from the Judges cases and the 1998 Memorandum of Procedure.

Rules it must follow (Third Judges case, 1998)

• Members must give their views in writing.
• If two collegium members object to a name, that name should not go forward.
• Return once, then bound:
• The government may send a name back once for the collegium to look at again.

• If the collegium reiterates the name (sends it again), the government must appoint that person.

• Seniority decides who becomes CJI. The outgoing CJI recommends the senior-most judge as the next CJI.

• Memorandum of procedure (MoP): the government's written rulebook for appointing judges. It was prepared in 1998, based on the Second Judges case judgment of 6 October 1993 and the Third Judges case opinion of 28 October 1998 [2].

How appointments move: step by step

A. Supreme Court judges

1. The CJI starts the proposal after consulting the 4 senior-most puisne judges.
2. The CJI sends the recommendation to the Union Law Minister [2].
3. The file goes to the Prime Minister and then the President, who makes the appointment.

B. High Court judges

1. High Court collegium proposes names. It must do so at least 6 months before a vacancy arises, but this time limit is "rarely observed" [2].
2. State government and Governor give their views [2].
3. Intelligence Bureau (IB) inputs: the Centre adds IB reports and any other reports it holds on the candidates [2].
4. Supreme Court collegium decides. It looks at the views of the High Court collegium, the state and the Centre [2]. It also consults Supreme Court judges who know that High Court well.
5. Union Law Ministry → Prime Minister → President: the appointment is notified. - Only names recommended by the Supreme Court collegium are appointed [2]. In the five years before July 2026, 608 High Court judges were appointed this way [2].

C. Other decisions of the collegium

• High Court Chief Justices: chosen by the Supreme Court collegium. Under the policy, they usually come from outside the state.
• Transfers of High Court judges: decided by the collegium. The judge's consent is not needed.

In the Constitution and practice

• What the text says (no "collegium" anywhere):
• Art. 124(2): the President appoints Supreme Court judges. Consulting the CJI is compulsory for every judge other than the CJI.
• Art. 217(1): for High Court judges, the President consults the CJI, the Governor and the Chief Justice of that High Court.
• Art. 222: the President may transfer a High Court judge after consulting the CJI.

• The legislature has no role. Parliament does not vote on or confirm judges, unlike the US Senate.

• Why judges wanted control: the supersessions. A supersession is when senior judges are passed over so that a junior judge becomes CJI.

• April 1973: A.N. Ray became CJI over J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde and A.N. Grover. This came a day after Kesavananda Bharati (1973), in which those three judges had ruled against the government.
• January 1977: M.H. Beg became CJI over H.R. Khanna, the lone dissenter in ADM Jabalpur (1976).

• Ministers defended the idea of a committed judiciary (judges who share the ruling party's views) in Parliament in 1973. Critics saw this as a direct threat to judicial independence.

• How the collegium was built, case by case: the judiciary's role moved from consultative to binding to collegial.

• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (First Judges case, December 1981): 'consultation' does not mean 'concurrence' (agreement). The executive had primacy over appointments and transfers.
• SCAORA v. Union of India (Second Judges case, 6 October 1993, 9 judges) [2]: overruled S.P. Gupta. The CJI's opinion has primacy (it carries the most weight), but the CJI must form it with the 2 senior-most judges. This is where the collegium was born.
• In re Special Reference No. 1 of 1998 (Third Judges case, 28 October 1998) [2]: an advisory opinion under Art. 143, the power of the President to ask the Supreme Court for its opinion on a question of law. It widened the collegium to the CJI + 4 and set the written rules.

• Union of India v. Sankalchand Sheth (1977): a High Court judge can be transferred without consent. The consultation must be real and effective, and the transfer must serve the public interest, not punish the judge.

• The NJAC challenge:

• The Constitution (121st Amendment) Bill, 2014 and the NJAC Bill, 2014 passed the Lok Sabha on 13 August 2014 and the Rajya Sabha on 14 August 2014 [4]. The President gave assent in December 2014 [3].
• The NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission) was to have the CJI as chair, the 2 senior-most judges, the Law Minister and 2 eminent persons [3]. Any two members could block a name [4].
• October 2015: a five-judge bench struck down both laws. It held that letting the executive take part in appointments harms judicial independence and breaks the separation of powers (each organ of government keeping to its own role) [3].
• Lasting effect: the collegium system came back into force and is still in use.

Don't confuse with

• Collegium vs NJAC: the collegium has only judges as members. The NJAC would also have had the Law Minister and 2 eminent persons, and it was struck down in October 2015 [3].
• Supreme Court collegium vs High Court collegium: the SC collegium (CJI + 4, or CJI + 2 for High Court matters) takes the final decision. The High Court collegium (its Chief Justice + 2 senior-most puisne judges) only proposes names.
• Consultation vs concurrence: S.P. Gupta (1981) said consultation ≠ concurrence, so the executive won. SCAORA (1993) gave the CJI's opinion primacy, so the judiciary won.
• Collegium vs seniority convention: the collegium chooses judges. The seniority convention is only a custom that the senior-most judge becomes CJI, and it is not written in Art. 124.

Prelims Hooks

• The word "collegium" appears nowhere in the Constitution. It comes from the Judges cases and the 1998 MoP. Art. 124(2) and Art. 217(1) speak only of "consultation".
• Second Judges case, SCAORA (6 October 1993, nine judges): the CJI's opinion, formed with the 2 senior-most judges, has primacy. This is the origin of the collegium [2].
• Third Judges case (28 October 1998): an advisory opinion under Art. 143, not an appeal. Collegium = CJI + 4 for the Supreme Court and CJI + 2 for High Courts [2].
• Third Judges case rules: if 2 members object, the name is dropped. The government can return a name once, and a reiterated name binds it.
• Art. 222 + Sankalchand Sheth (1977): a High Court judge can be transferred without their consent, but consultation must be real and effective.
• NJAC: passed in August 2014 and struck down by a five-judge bench in October 2015. Any 2 members could block a name, and the collegium was restored [3][4].

Mains Points

• Independence vs accountability
• For the collegium: the 1973 and 1977 supersessions and the "committed judiciary" idea show the danger of executive primacy.

• Against the collegium: it is opaque. It gives few reasons and has no fixed criteria. That is why reform bodies proposed a judicial appointments commission: the Law Commission (1987), the NCRWC (2002), the National Advisory Council (2005) and the 2nd ARC (2007) [3].

• Delays and friction with the government

• The 6-month advance timeline for High Court names is rarely met [2].
• The government can sit on files, so the "return once, then bound" rule is weakened in practice.
• IB reports give the executive an indirect say [2].

• Reform idea: a revised MoP with fixed time limits for each step.

• The way forward after 2015

• The NJAC ruling kept primacy with the judges [3]. But the case for openness, written criteria, recorded reasons for transfers and a wider pool of candidates remains.
• Middle path: reform the collegium from within rather than return to executive control.

Related concepts

• Appointment of judges
• Committed judiciary
• Supersession of judges
• First Judges case
• Second Judges case
• Third Judges case
• Transfer of High Court judges

Read more

• Appointing judges I: seniority, supersessions and the three Judges cases