"The Collegium system has secured judicial independence but at the cost of transparency." Critically examine, in light of the NJAC judgment and later reforms.

The Collegium is made up of the CJI and the four senior-most judges. It is a judge-made mechanism that came from the Second (1993) and Third (1998) Judges Cases, and it has no textual basis in Art. 124(2). In October 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC and held that judicial primacy in appointments is part of the basic structure [1]. The statement is largely valid: the Collegium has secured independence, but transparency has lagged.

How the Collegium secures independence

• Insulation from the executive: The Court held that the NJAC's executive members, the Law Minister and two eminent persons, could effectively veto judicial choices. That threatened judicial independence [1].
• Peer assessment of merit: Judges are best placed to judge their peers. In September 2026, the Collegium recommended the Chief Justices of the Gujarat, Delhi and Telangana High Courts, balancing seniority with regional representation [2].
• Flexibility: Senior advocate V. Mohana was elevated directly from the Bar in May 2026 under the "advocate of 10 years" limb of Art. 124(3) [2].

The cost: transparency and accountability

• Opaque process: There are no statutory criteria, and deliberations are not recorded publicly. Critics call it "judges appointing judges". The revised Memorandum of Procedure is still pending.
• Diversity deficit: Since 2018, only 3% SC and 1.5% ST judges have been appointed to the High Courts [3]. Since 2014, only 6 women have been appointed to the Supreme Court, against 170 in the High Courts [4].
• Weak accountability: Judges are not legally required to declare their assets [3]. The Yashwant Varma cash episode went through an internal in-house enquiry [2], while impeachment under Art. 124(4) is rarely used.

Later reforms and their limits

• The Parliamentary Standing Committee (2023) sought three things: a law requiring annual property returns from judges, data on judges' social backgrounds, and more women and marginalised candidates [3].
• The government has asked High Court Chief Justices to consider SC, ST, OBC, minority and women candidates [4]. However, these requests remain advisory.
• Parliament raised the Supreme Court's strength to 38 [2]. This adds capacity, not transparency.

The Collegium has protected the Bench from executive capture, but its opacity weakens public trust. The way forward is to keep judicial primacy and add transparency by law. That means a time-bound MoP, published selection criteria, mandatory asset declarations and diversity data. This would respect the 2015 verdict and advance SDG 16's goal of accountable, transparent institutions.