Why in the News?

• Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has raised concerns over the lack of transparency in recent Supreme Court Collegium recommendations, urging the institution to record reasons for judicial appointments to strengthen public confidence and accountability.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Collegium System (Evolution, Composition, Need for Transparency, etc.)
• News Summary

Supreme Court Collegium System

• The Collegium System is the mechanism through which judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed and transferred.
• It is a judicially evolved system and does not find explicit mention in the Constitution.
• Evolution of the Collegium System
  • The Collegium system evolved through a series of Supreme Court judgments known as the Three Judges Cases:
  • First Judges Case (1981): Held that the executive had primacy in judicial appointments.
  • Second Judges Case (1993): Reversed the earlier position and gave primacy to the judiciary, leading to the creation of the Collegium system.
  • Third Judges Case (1998): Clarified the composition and functioning of the Collegium through a Presidential Reference.
• Composition
  • The Supreme Court Collegium comprises:
    • Chief Justice of India (CJI)
    • Four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court
    • It recommends:
    • Appointment of Supreme Court judges
    • Appointment of High Court Chief Justices
    • Appointment and transfer of High Court judges
  • A High Court Collegium consists of:
    • Chief Justice of the High Court
    • Two senior-most judges of the High Court
    • It recommends names for appointment as High Court judges.
• The Collegium recommends names after considering:
• Merit and judicial competence
• Seniority
• Integrity
• Representation of different regions and communities
• The recommendations are forwarded to the Union Government. While the government may seek reconsideration, if the Collegium reiterates its recommendation, convention requires the government to accept it.

Need for Transparency in Judicial Appointments

• Judicial appointments directly affect the independence, credibility, and efficiency of the judiciary. Transparency in the appointment process helps:
  • Strengthen public confidence in the judiciary
  • Ensure accountability in decision-making
  • Recognise deserving candidates based on merit
  • Reduce perceptions of arbitrariness
  • Promote institutional legitimacy
• At the same time, the process must maintain confidentiality where necessary to protect the independence of judicial deliberations.

News Summary

• Supreme Court Judge Ujjal Bhuyan made these observations while delivering the keynote address at an event.
• Concern Over Absence of Reasons
  • Justice Bhuyan observed that the last three resolutions of the Supreme Court Collegium contained no reasons for recommending judges for elevation.
  • He noted that this marked a departure from the Collegium's earlier practice, where recommendations were generally accompanied by brief reasons highlighting the suitability of candidates.
  • According to him, this represents a step back from the principle of transparency.
• Transparency Enhances Public Confidence
  • Justice Bhuyan stated that recording reasons for judicial appointments strengthens public trust in the institution.
  • He observed that transparency enables citizens to understand why particular candidates have been recommended and reassures them that appointments are based on objective considerations rather than arbitrary decisions.
• Recognition of Deserving Candidates
  • Justice Bhuyan pointed out that the absence of reasons also disadvantages deserving judges.
  • According to him, many judges have made outstanding contributions to the administration of justice, but when recommendations are issued without any explanation, the public remains unaware of their achievements and professional merit.
  • Providing reasons would therefore acknowledge the work of deserving candidates while enhancing institutional credibility.
• Risk of Unsuitable Appointments
  • Justice Bhuyan cautioned that withholding reasons could create space for unsuitable individuals to enter the higher judiciary.
  • He observed that greater transparency in the appointment process could help prevent individuals making unconstitutional or derogatory remarks from being elevated.
  • He argued that judicial appointments should involve meaningful discussion and recorded reasons, particularly when appointments are made to constitutional courts.
• Confidentiality Should Not Mean Complete Opacity
  • Justice Bhuyan acknowledged that deliberations relating to appointments and transfers require a degree of confidentiality.
  • However, he distinguished confidentiality of discussions from complete opacity in the final recommendations.
  • He observed that while internal deliberations may remain confidential, providing brief reasons for recommendations would improve transparency without compromising institutional independence.

Observations on Live Streaming of Court Proceedings

• Justice Bhuyan also discussed judicial transparency in the context of live streaming of court proceedings, describing it as the most significant transparency initiative of the past decade.
• Balance Between Transparency and Misuse
  • Referring to the Supreme Court's recent order, he noted that the Court had attempted to strike a balance between:
• Transparency in judicial proceedings
  • He observed that isolated portions of courtroom exchanges are often circulated with sensational captions, creating misleading public narratives and causing reputational harm to judges, advocates, and litigants.
  • According to him, the order does not dilute live streaming but seeks to distinguish genuine transparency from misuse of judicial proceedings.
• Importance of Open Courts
  • Justice Bhuyan reiterated that open courts are fundamental to public confidence in the judiciary.
  • He referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018), which recognised live streaming as an instrument of transparency, accountability, and good governance.
  • He also cited the judgment in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020), wherein the Court observed that judicial independence is not secured by secrecy and that greater transparency does not undermine judicial independence.
• According to Justice Bhuyan, public access to justice and transparency constitute the very soul of the justice delivery system.