The Collegium system, though evolved to protect judicial independence, has been criticised for opacity in its functioning. Discuss with reference to recent observations by Supreme Court judges.

Q. The Collegium system, though evolved to protect judicial independence, has been criticised for opacity in its functioning. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Judicial appointments in India are governed not by statute but by judicial interpretation of Articles 124 and 217 — the Collegium, born of the Second Judges Case (1993) and expanded in 1998, was designed to insulate the higher judiciary from executive control [1]. Recent remarks by sitting Supreme Court judges show that this shield has come at the cost of transparency.

Rationale: safeguarding independence - The Three Judges Cases shifted primacy from the Executive to a CJI-led body, treating judicial independence as part of the basic structure [1]. - On the same reasoning the Court struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment and NJAC Act in 2015 (SC Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India), fearing executive influence over selection [1].

The transparency deficit - No reasons recorded: Collegium resolutions uploaded on the Court's website once carried reasons; recent resolutions disclose bare names, a "return to opacity" flagged in a Supreme Court judge's keynote in August 2026 [3][4]. - No codified criteria: grounds for elevation, deferral or rejection are not set out in any publicly accessible instrument, weakening merit-based scrutiny and disadvantaging deserving candidates whose record stays unknown [4]. - Accountability gap: unexplained recommendations leave no public check against elevating persons with a record of derogatory or unconstitutional conduct on the Bench [4]. - Procedural drift: the Memorandum of Procedure, still unfinalised amid Executive–Judiciary disagreement, prescribes no binding timelines, so vacancies and delays persist [1][2].

Way forward - Finalise the MoP with codified eligibility norms and disclosure standards [2]. - Publish reasoned resolutions and a permanent secretariat for evaluating candidates, as recommended in comparative models like the UK Judicial Appointments Commission [1].

Independence and accountability are complements, not rivals. A Collegium that explains itself strengthens, rather than dilutes, the public confidence on which judicial independence ultimately rests — advancing both constitutional accountability and SDG 16 on effective, transparent institutions.

(~310 words)

Sources: 1. PRS Legislative Research — Rethinking judicial appointments: Collegium vs. Commission — Three Judges Cases, NJAC/99th Amendment and its striking down, comparative appointment models 2. Department of Justice, Ministry of Law & Justice — Memorandum of Procedure of Appointment of Supreme Court Judges — MoP as the governing procedural framework, unfinalised status 3. Supreme Court of India — Collegium Resolutions — content of published Collegium resolutions 4. Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy (JALDI) — The Judicial Transparency Index (1 August 2026) — disclosure gaps in the Supreme Court and High Courts; Supreme Court judge's keynote criticising unreasoned Collegium recommendations