The Collegium is said to be opaque, yet 'Judges appoint Judges' is called a myth. Critically examine.

The Collegium finds no mention in the Constitution: Articles 124(2) and 217(1) speak only of "consultation", which the Judges Cases read as "concurrence" [1]. Both charges — opacity, and the "myth" of judicial self-appointment — are substantially true, but they indict different institutions.

Why "Judges appoint Judges" is largely a myth

• The Collegium only initiates; the file travels through State governments, the Union Law Ministry and intelligence agencies, and every warrant finally bears the President's imprimatur [4].
• The Executive's real power is delay, not refusal — it took on average five to seven months to complete appointments after a recommendation reached it (2018-19), a stage for which the Memorandum of Procedure prescribes no deadline [2].
• "Piecemeal approvals" — clearing some names while others "gather dust" — quietly reorder seniority and bench composition, and even transfer recommendations go unacted upon [4].
• The cost is institutional: 406 of 1,098 High Court posts vacant (Nov 2021), 35-40% unfilled annually, against over four crore pending cases [2].

Yet the opacity charge against the Collegium stands

• Eligibility criteria, the method of selection, merit standards and vacancy numbers are not published — the Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice (2016) had to ask for their disclosure [3].
• A rejected candidate receives no written reasons, and there is no computerised database of eligible candidates, so the pool stays narrow [3].
• The "detailed consultation" defence itself concedes that selection occurs behind closed doors, untestable from outside [4].
• The NJAC was struck down for not securing judicial primacy — not because the Collegium was found faultless [1].

Both propositions hold, and they are separate defects: opacity lies in how the judiciary selects, delay in how the Executive responds — neither excuses the other. The way forward is to finalise the Memorandum of Procedure with enforceable timelines for all higher courts, published criteria and reasoned rejections, supported by ad hoc judges and same-day filling of retirement vacancies [3]. Transparency and judicial primacy are complements, not rivals, and together they secure the citizen's right to speedy justice.