Evaluate the role of the Collegium system in light of the increasing sanctioned strength of the higher judiciary.

Q. Evaluate the role of the Collegium system in light of the increasing sanctioned strength of the higher judiciary. (15 marks, 250 words)

The Collegium system, evolved through the Second Judges Case, 1993, vests judicial appointments in the CJI and four senior-most judges. With the Cabinet clearing a rise in Supreme Court strength from 33 to 37 puisne judges (total 38) via the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 [1], its role in filling these seats swiftly and wisely acquires fresh weight.

Merits amplified by expansion - Judicial independence: insulates appointments from executive influence, upholding basic-structure separation of powers — vital as a larger bench decides more Constitution Bench references under Art. 145(3). - Speed of filling: four new posts can be populated without a constitutional amendment; timely recommendations directly aid pendency-clearing (~64,854 cases pending, 2023) [4], the stated aim of the hike [1]. - Diversity window: a bigger bench widens scope for regional, gender and social representation in recommendations.

Concerns sharpened by expansion - Opacity: no fixed criteria or secretariat; more vacancies risk ad-hoc, non-transparent selection. - Delays: government–Collegium tussles over the pending Memorandum of Procedure leave posts vacant, defeating the expansion's purpose. - Accountability deficit: the NJAC verdict, 2015 struck down reform, leaving self-appointment critiques unanswered.

Verdict: expanded strength magnifies both the Collegium's utility and its flaws. The mechanism remains indispensable for guarding independence, but larger sanctioned strength makes procedural reform urgent. Finalising a transparent MoP and a robust appointments secretariat would let the Collegium convert 37 sanctioned seats into genuine relief from pendency, honouring both independence and accountability.

(~250 words)

Sources: 1. Cabinet approves increase in Judge strength of the Supreme Court from 33 to 37 (PIB, 5 May 2026) — strength hike 33→37, parent 1956 Act, pendency rationale 2. Strength of Judges (PIB) — statutory evolution of SC judge strength 3. Pendency of cases in the Supreme Court (Lok Sabha Unstarred Question, Sansad) — ~64,854 registered pending cases (2023)