Recent Resolutions by the Collegium
Collegium will now interview candidates recommended for elevation as judges to High Courts.
Aim: To ensure appointments are made after thorough evaluation of candidates.
Collegium plans to avoid appointing candidates whose close relatives are or have been judges in High Courts or the Supreme Court.
Objective is to promote diversity in the judiciary.
Some deserving candidates may be excluded, but the measure is seen as necessary
Concerns and Limitations of the Collegium System
Collegium decisions are often attributed to unnamed sources, adding to the lack of transparency.
No binding rules govern its processes, leading to ad hoc decision-making.
The government can delay or block recommendations arbitrarily, undermining the collegium’s primacy.
Tools of delay include withholding proposals or failing to issue a presidential warrant for appointments or transfers.
Need for Reform
Any meaningful reform must address the lack of binding rules and improve transparency.
A revised framework must enforce compliance and accountability for both the collegium and the government.
Provisions for Judicial Appointments
Judges of the Supreme Court: Appointed by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and other judges deemed necessary.
Judges of High Courts: Appointed by the President in consultation with the CJI, the Governor, and the Chief Justice of the respective High Court.
Judicial Interpretation of “Consultation”
Second Judges Case (1993): Defined “consultation” as requiring “concurrence” from the collegium.
Established the collegium system comprising the CJI and senior judges.
Recommendations for appointments and transfers are initiated by the collegium and must be accepted by the government after reconsideration if resubmitted.
Operational Challenges
Despite judicial directives, the government can delay implementation by withholding action on proposals.
This creates a paradox where the judiciary’s independence is theoretically protected but practically undermined.
Breaches of the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) carry no consequences.
Collegium’s new initiatives (interviews, candidate exclusions) need to be formalized in binding rules to ensure consistency.
Broader Implications for Judicial Independence
While the judiciary and the government are expected to collaborate, persistent delays and non-compliance from the government disrupt the system.
Upholding Rule of Law
The government must adhere to procedures laid down in the Judges’ cases.
Judiciary must ensure compliance to preserve its role as a counter-majoritarian institution.
Future Directions
A transparent, accountable, and formalized process for judicial appointments is essential.
Until a robust alternative is developed, meaningful reforms within the existing system are critical.
Conclusion
The collegium’s new proposals signal an attempt to address systemic concerns but require effective implementation to achieve their objectives.
For the judiciary to maintain its independence and integrity, reforms must focus on both procedural clarity and enforcement mechanisms.
COMMENTS