Collegium’s unexplained recommendations risk bad appointments, says SC judge

1. At a Glance

• Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan publicly criticised the Collegium system's lack of transparency, warning that unexplained recommendations create a loophole for unsuitable candidates to become judges [1][3].
• Directly relevant to GS-II Polity (judicial appointments, Collegium vs. NJAC debate, judicial accountability) — a recurring UPSC theme.
• Ties into the broader unresolved Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) standoff between Executive and Judiciary [2].
• Highlights an institutional transparency gap flagged by an independent think-tank's index, giving aspirants a fresh empirical hook for Mains answers on judicial reforms.

2. Why in the News

• On Saturday, 1 August 2026, Justice Bhuyan spoke at the launch of Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy's (JALDI initiative) report, "The Judicial Transparency Index: Assessing Disclosure of Information by the Supreme Court and the High Courts", in New Delhi [1][3].
• He cited a former Allahabad High Court judge's reported reference to a minority community as "ants" (made while sitting on the Bench) as an example of how opacity lets unfit individuals enter/remain in the judiciary [1][3][4].
• He stated the last three Supreme Court Collegium resolutions contained no reasons at all for recommendations — signalling a "return to opacity," which he called a relatively recent phenomenon [1][3].

3. Background & Evolution

• Judicial appointments in India evolved through the "Three Judges Cases": First Judges Case (1981) — primacy to Executive; Second Judges Case (1993) — introduced the Collegium system, primacy to CJI-led judiciary; Third Judges Case (1998) — expanded Collegium to CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges [2].
• The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014 sought to replace the Collegium; struck down by the SC in 2015 as violative of "independence of judiciary" (basic structure) [2].
• The Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) governs the process but remains unfinalised due to Executive-Judiciary disagreement over transparency, accountability, and objectivity clauses [2].
• Collegium resolutions were briefly made more transparent (reasons disclosed, uploaded on SC website) during the tenure of certain past CJIs; this practice has since receded — the "return to opacity" Justice Bhuyan referenced [1][3].

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• Collegium system rests on judicial interpretation of Article 124 and 217, not a codified statute — making transparency norms discretionary rather than legally binding [2].
• The MoP's own "limited disclosure" framework is itself criticised as inadequate by Justice Bhuyan [1].

Ethical / Governance

• Opacity in deliberations undermines public accountability; reasons for rejecting/deferring recommendations are "rarely disclosed in full" [1][3].
• Absence of codified, publicly accessible selection criteria weakens merit-based scrutiny and enables entry of candidates with a record of unconstitutional/derogatory conduct [1][3][4].
• Non-disclosure also disadvantages deserving candidates, whose achievements/merits remain unknown to the public [1].

Administrative

• No timeline is prescribed for the Executive's action after receiving Collegium recommendations; in 2018–19 HC appointments took an average of 5–7 months post-recommendation [2].
• Standing Committee (2021) flagged that the mandated 6-month advance-initiation timeline for HC vacancies is rarely followed [2].

Historical

• Contrasts an earlier, more transparent phase (reasoned Collegium resolutions publicly uploaded) against the current opaque phase — evidence-based generational shift, not a static/permanent feature [1][3].

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• 1 August 2026: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan's keynote address and remarks at the Vidhi Centre report launch, criticising Collegium opacity [1][3].
• 1 August 2026: Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy (JALDI) released the Judicial Transparency Index assessing disclosure practices of the Supreme Court and High Courts [1][3].
• Justice Bhuyan requested the JALDI team specifically examine Collegium opacity in the next edition of the Index [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• The Collegium system originated from the Second Judges Case, 1993 (not the First Judges Case, 1981) [2].
• The NJAC Act, 2014 and 99th Constitutional Amendment were struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015.
• Judicial appointments are governed by a Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), which is not a parliamentary statute.
• Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy publishes work through its JALDI (Justice, Access and Lowering Delays in India) initiative [1][3].
• The "Judicial Transparency Index" report launched on 1 August 2026 assesses disclosure by the Supreme Court and High Courts [1][3].
• Justice Ujjal Bhuyan is a sitting Supreme Court judge who delivered the keynote at the report's launch [1][3].
• Justice Bhuyan said the last three SC Collegium resolutions carried no stated reasons [1][3].
• The controversial remark cited (referring to a minority community as "ants") was reportedly made by a former Allahabad High Court judge while on the Bench [1][3][4].
• HC judge appointment initiation is meant to begin 6 months before a vacancy arises, per MoP norms [2].
• Average time for Executive action after Collegium recommendation (2018–19 data) was 5–7 months [2].
• Article 124 deals with Supreme Court judge appointments; Article 217 with High Court judge appointments (constitutional basis underlying Collegium jurisprudence).
• The NJAC case is formally titled Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) [2].

8. Mains Relevance

• GS-II — Polity & Governance: "Appointment to various Constitutional posts, powers, functions and responsibilities of various Constitutional Bodies"; also Judiciary structure, organisation and functioning.
• GS-IV (subsidiary angle) — Governance/ethics dimension: transparency and accountability in public institutions.
• Possible Mains stems: 1. "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." (GS-II, 15 marks) 2. "Examine the tension between judicial independence and transparency/accountability in India's higher judiciary appointment process. Suggest reforms." (GS-II, 15 marks) 3. "Critically evaluate why the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was struck down, and assess whether the Collegium system has since addressed the concerns that motivated NJAC." (GS-II, 10 marks)

9. Related Topics to Study Next

• NJAC Act & 99th Constitutional Amendment (2014) — the failed alternative to the Collegium; core comparative topic.
• Three Judges Cases (1981, 1993, 1998) — doctrinal foundation of the Collegium.
• Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) — the unfinalised rulebook governing appointments.
• Judicial accountability & in-house procedure for judge misconduct — links to how errant judges (like the "ants" remark case) are dealt with post-appointment.
• Right to Information (RTI) and the judiciary — CIC/SC rulings on whether Collegium records fall under RTI.
• Basic Structure Doctrine — invoked in striking down NJAC; recurring GS-II/constitutional law theme.
• Judicial vacancies and pendency of cases — administrative fallout of slow, opaque appointments (PRS data) [2].
• Comparative judicial appointment models (UK Judicial Appointments Commission, US Senate confirmation) — useful for Mains comparative analysis.

10. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Do not confuse the Collegium system with a constitutionally/statutorily codified body — it is judge-made law, not derived from a specific Article or Act.
• Do not conflate the NJAC Act, 2014 with the MoP — NJAC was a replacement mechanism (struck down); MoP is the still-operative (unfinalised) procedural framework under the Collegium.
• Aspirants often wrongly attribute Collegium composition uniformly — remember it differs for SC appointments (CJI + 4 seniormost SC judges) vs. HC appointments (CJI + 2 seniormost SC judges, plus concerned HC Chief Justice and two seniormost HC judges).
• Do not misdate the NJAC striking down — it was 2015, not 2014 (the year of enactment).
• The Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy is an independent think-tank/NGO, not a government body — do not misattribute the Judicial Transparency Index to a government agency like Law Commission or Ministry of Law and Justice.