The Collegium system, though evolved to protect judicial independence, is often criticised for lack of transparency. Examine with reference to recent controversies.

The Collegium — the CJI with the four senior-most Supreme Court judges — has no explicit textual basis in the Constitution; it evolved through the Three Judges Cases (1982, 1993, 1998) to insulate appointments and transfers from executive influence [2]. Its protective logic is sound, but its procedural opacity has drawn sustained criticism.

Why it protects independence

• Primacy of the judiciary: Article 222 vests transfer of a High Court judge in the President "after consultation with" the CJI; in practice the Collegium's recommendation binds, preventing punitive executive transfers [1].
• Insulation from political capture: the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC in 2015, holding executive participation in selection a threat to the basic feature of judicial independence [2].
• Safeguards against arbitrariness: Article 222(2) grants a transferred judge a compensatory allowance, blunting transfer as a penalty [1].

Where transparency fails

• No published criteria: resolutions uploaded on the Supreme Court website record decisions, rarely the reasons or comparative merit behind supersessions and transfers [3].
• Information deficit: the Law Commission's 214th Report noted that collegium judges are often unacquainted with candidates' antecedents, and flagged concerns of nepotism and privilege [4].
• Recent controversy: a sitting Supreme Court judge's repeated letters (August 2026) to the CJI alleging maladministration, favouritism in senior designations, and manipulation of case listings by an Acting Chief Justice of a High Court — against a judge the Collegium itself had repatriated in 2026 [3] — exposed the absence of any codified route for such grievances.
• Unwritten in-house procedure: complaints against sitting judges rest on internal peer practice, not statute, leaving both complainant and accused without published timelines.

Independence and accountability are complements, not rivals. A publicly notified Memorandum of Procedure, reasoned resolutions, a permanent secretariat for verifying antecedents, and a codified complaints mechanism guaranteeing the accused a fair hearing would deliver both. Transparency, so structured, strengthens rather than dilutes the constitutional guarantee the Collegium was created to defend.