Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Collegium system

The Collegium system is a judge-led mechanism in India for recommending the appointment and transfer of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts, comprising the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, whose proposals are formally advised to the President after limited executive input.^[1]^[2] This framework emerged from the Supreme Court's interpretation of Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution in the Second Judges Case (1993), which overruled prior precedents to assert judicial primacy in appointments, mandating that the Chief Justice's collegial recommendations bind the executive to prevent political dominance over the judiciary.^[2]^[1] The Third Judges Case (1998) refined the process by requiring broader intra-collegium consultation, including the two senior-most judges for High Court recommendations, and emphasizing consensus to balance individual views while upholding collective judicial control.^[3]^[1] Rooted in responses to executive overreach during the 1975 Emergency, the system has succeeded in insulating appointments from partisan interference, enabling the judiciary to check government actions through landmark rulings on fundamental rights and federalism.^[1] However, it has drawn scrutiny for procedural secrecy, which obscures deliberations and has fueled claims of favoritism toward familial or institutional insiders, alongside chronic delays that exacerbate over 30% vacancy rates in higher courts, straining caseloads exceeding 50 million pending matters nationwide.^[3]^[4] A 2014 constitutional amendment establishing the National Judicial Appointments Commission—with equal judicial and non-judicial members to enhance accountability—was invalidated in 2015 as undermining the Constitution's basic structure of judicial independence, thereby entrenching the collegium despite reform demands.^[5]^[6]

Origins and Legal Evolution

Pre-Collegium Judicial Appointments

Prior to the establishment of the collegium system, judicial appointments to the Supreme Court of India were governed by Article 124(2) of the Constitution, which stipulated that every judge, including the Chief Justice of India (CJI), shall be appointed by the President after consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as the President may deem necessary.^[7] A parallel provision under Article 217 applied to High Court judges, emphasizing presidential appointment following consultation with the CJI, the Governor, and the State High Court.^[8] In this framework, the executive branch—acting through the Council of Ministers advising the President—held formal authority, with consultations serving as advisory rather than binding.^[1] From 1950 to the early 1970s, appointments generally followed a convention of seniority for the CJI position and involved informal harmony between the judiciary and executive, with the CJI recommending names based on merit and consultations yielding consensus in most cases.^[9] However, this period saw growing executive influence, particularly under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's government, which sought judges aligned with its policies, leading to accusations of appointing "committed" judiciary to support legislative and administrative goals.^[10] Tensions escalated with supersessions of senior judges, starting on April 26, 1973, when Justice A.N. Ray was appointed CJI, bypassing the three senior-most judges—Justices J.M. Shelat, A.N. Grover, and K.S. Hegde—who had formed the majority in the Kesavananda Bharati case upholding the basic structure doctrine against Parliament's amendment powers.^[11] This move, viewed as retaliation for the doctrine's limitation on executive power, prompted a nationwide lawyers' strike and resignations, eroding trust in the process.^[12] Similar supersessions occurred in 1975 and 1977, totaling three instances where the senior-most judge was overlooked for CJI, further highlighting executive override of judicial seniority conventions.^[13] The Supreme Court's ruling in the First Judges Case (S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981) formalized executive primacy by interpreting "consultation" under Articles 124 and 217 as not requiring the CJI's concurrence, thereby affirming that the executive could appoint or transfer judges despite judicial dissent, provided consultations occurred.^[1] This decision, delivered by a 4:1 majority, prioritized the government's role in ensuring a judiciary reflective of societal changes but drew criticism for potentially compromising independence amid post-Emergency concerns over executive overreach.^[14]

First Judges Case and Initial Rejection

The First Judges Case, formally S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, originated from petitions filed in 1981 challenging the transfer of several High Court judges without their consent and the central government's refusal to appoint certain judges recommended by High Court collegia or the Chief Justice of India (CJI).^[15] Petitioners, including advocates like S.P. Gupta, argued that under Articles 124(2), 217(1), and 222(1) of the Indian Constitution, the term "consultation" with the CJI implied binding concurrence, thereby granting the judiciary primacy in appointments and transfers to safeguard independence from executive influence.^[16] They contended that executive override of judicial recommendations, as seen in the non-appointment of three additional judges to the Delhi High Court in 1981 despite CJI recommendations, violated constitutional intent and risked politicization of the judiciary.^[17] A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court, delivering its judgment on December 30, 1981, rejected the petitioners' interpretation by a 4:3 majority.^[15] The majority, led by Justice P.N. Bhagwati, held that "consultation" did not equate to "concurrence," affirming the executive's primacy in judicial appointments and transfers, with the President's decision—advised by the Council of Ministers—being final even if differing from the CJI's opinion.^[16] The court reasoned that while the CJI's views warranted respect for ensuring judicial quality, they were advisory only, as the Constitution vested ultimate authority in the executive to balance separation of powers without subordinating it to judicial veto.^[17] Justice Bhagwati emphasized judicial independence through post-appointment safeguards like security of tenure but declined to impose pre-appointment primacy, viewing it as an overreach that could undermine democratic accountability.^[15] This ruling effectively rejected any nascent collegium-like mechanism by endorsing executive dominance, allowing transfers under Article 222 without judge consent provided CJI consultation occurred, though not binding.^[16] Dissenting judges, including Justice A.D. Koshal, advocated for CJI concurrence to prevent executive overreach, but the majority's stance preserved the pre-1973 convention where the executive held decisive power, as interpreted post the 42nd Constitutional Amendment's failed attempt to formalize it.^[17] The decision drew criticism for potentially exposing appointments to political pressures, yet it aligned with a textual reading prioritizing executive responsibility under Articles 124 and 217, setting the stage for later challenges amid concerns over judicial vacancies and transfers.^[15]

Second and Third Judges Cases: Establishing the Collegium

The Second Judges Case, formally Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, was decided by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India on October 6, 1993.^[2] The case arose from writ petitions challenging the executive's role in judicial appointments, particularly after the First Judges Case (1981) had upheld executive primacy in interpreting "consultation" under Article 124(2) of the Constitution.^[18] In a majority opinion authored by Justice J.S. Verma, the Court overruled the First Judges Case, holding that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) must initiate proposals for appointments to the Supreme Court and consult with the two senior-most judges of the Court to form a collegium whose unanimous or majority opinion would have primacy over the executive's views.^[19] This interpretation emphasized that "consultation" implied effective, binding input from the judiciary to safeguard independence, rejecting executive veto power as inconsistent with the Constitution's basic structure.^[2] The judgment established the initial framework of the collegium system by vesting the judiciary with primary responsibility for selecting judges, arguing that executive dominance risked politicization, as evidenced by historical delays in appointments during the 1980s.^[18] Dissenting opinions, such as those from Justices R.M. Sahai and S. Ratnavel Pandian, cautioned against excessive judicial self-selection, warning of potential insularity, but the majority prevailed, mandating that if the executive disagreed with the collegium's recommendation, the CJI could reconsider only after further consultation, with the judiciary's final view binding.^[19] This shifted the balance from executive-led processes under Article 124 to a judiciary-centric mechanism, laying the groundwork for institutionalizing collegial decision-making. The Third Judges Case, In re Special Reference No. 1 of 1998, addressed ambiguities in the Second Case through a presidential reference under Article 143, answered by a nine-judge bench on October 28, 1998.^[20] The reference sought clarification on the CJI's consultative obligations, the scope of executive iteration, and applicability to high court appointments under Articles 217 and 224.^[21] The unanimous advisory opinion expanded the Supreme Court collegium to include the CJI and the four senior-most judges, requiring the CJI to ascertain views collectively before recommending names, with primacy accorded to this broader group's opinion even after executive objections—limited to one iteration of reconsideration.^[20] For high courts, the ruling mandated consultation between the CJI (with two senior Supreme Court judges familiar with the high court) and the high court collegium (Chief Justice and two senior judges), ensuring judiciary-led primacy while allowing limited executive input on suitability.^[20] This refinement solidified the collegium as the operational mechanism for appointments and transfers, interpreting constitutional provisions to prioritize judicial consensus for independence, though it rejected absolute unanimity in favor of majority views to avoid deadlocks.^[21] Together, the Second and Third Cases entrenched the collegium system, overriding executive discretion to prevent perceived post-Emergency encroachments on judicial autonomy.^[2]

Post-1998 Clarifications and Memorandum of Procedure

Following the Third Judges Case in 1998, the Supreme Court of India and the Government of India revised the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) to operationalize the collegium system, emphasizing the judiciary's primacy in appointments while delineating consultative roles for the executive. The MoP stipulates that proposals for appointing Supreme Court judges originate with the Chief Justice of India (CJI), who consults a collegium comprising the four seniormost puisne judges; written opinions from this collegium form the basis of recommendations forwarded to the Union Minister of Law and Justice, then to the Prime Minister for advice to the President.^[22] For High Court judges, initiation vests with the Chief Justice of the High Court at least six months before vacancies, subject to review by the CJI in consultation with two senior Supreme Court judges, with state governments providing inputs via governors within six weeks, though the CJI's reiterated recommendation binds the executive after one return for reconsideration.^[23] A key post-1998 clarification emerged in the 2015 Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India judgment, which invalidated the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act and reaffirmed the collegium's constitutional validity under the basic structure doctrine. In a supplementary order on December 16, 2015, the Court directed amendments to the MoP to enhance transparency and accountability, including publication of collegium resolutions with reasons (except sensitive matters), establishment of a permanent secretariat under the CJI for data on eligibility and complaints, and incorporation of objective criteria such as merit, integrity, and diversity without fixed quotas.^[24] These directives aimed to address empirical shortcomings in prior processes, such as opaque deliberations, while rejecting executive veto power.^[25] Implementation of the 2015 directions has faced delays due to disagreements between the judiciary and executive; the government proposed MoP revisions in 2017 and 2023 incorporating eligibility thresholds and executive objections on national security or integrity, but the collegium has reiterated recommendations without full adoption, leading to stalled appointments—for instance, over 55 High Court recommendations pending as of 2021.^[26] The unchanged core MoP retains the 1998 framework's binding nature of collegium reiterations, underscoring judicial primacy but highlighting persistent friction over procedural refinements.^[22]

Composition and Operational Mechanism

Supreme Court Collegium Structure

The Supreme Court Collegium of India consists of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.^[27]^[22] This five-member body was formalized by the Supreme Court's ruling in the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (Third Judges Case) on November 6, 1998, which expanded the collegium from the CJI plus two senior judges—set in the Second Judges Case (1993)—to include four senior judges to ensure broader judicial input in appointments.^[27]^[28] Membership in the collegium is determined strictly by seniority among Supreme Court judges, with the CJI as the head; changes occur automatically upon a judge's elevation, retirement, or death, shifting the lineup to the next senior judges.^[27]^[22] The collegium operates without a formal quorum requirement beyond its full composition for deliberations, though the Third Judges Case established that recommendations require a majority vote among members, with consensus preferred to reflect collective judicial wisdom.^[28]^[3] Deliberations occur in closed sessions, focusing on candidates' integrity, competence, and suitability, with the CJI consulting collegium members individually or collectively before finalizing recommendations for Supreme Court appointments or elevations from High Courts.^[22] For High Court elevations, the CJI also consults the senior-most Supreme Court judge familiar with the High Court's functioning.^[27] Recommendations are forwarded to the Union Minister of Law and Justice, then the Prime Minister, for transmission to the President under Article 124(2) of the Constitution; if the government returns objections, the collegium may reiterate its proposal, rendering it binding.^[22]^[27] This structure underscores the judiciary's primacy in appointments, as affirmed in the 2015 Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India ruling that struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission for encroaching on judicial independence.^[28]

High Court Collegiums and Coordination

The collegium system for High Courts in India operates through bodies at each High Court, distinct from but coordinated with the Supreme Court collegium, to recommend appointments and transfers of judges under Article 217 of the Constitution. Each High Court collegium comprises the Chief Justice of the High Court and the two seniormost puisne judges of that court.^[23]^[29]^[27] This smaller composition, unlike the five-member Supreme Court collegium, reflects the scale of High Court operations while emphasizing seniority in deliberations. The High Court Chief Justice initiates the recommendation process for appointments of additional or permanent judges, typically six months before an anticipated vacancy to allow timely processing.^[23] The Chief Justice consults the two senior colleagues within the collegium, assessing candidates based on integrity, legal acumen, and suitability, often drawing from advocates with at least seven years of practice or serving judges eligible for elevation.^[23] Recommendations are forwarded to the state's Chief Minister and Governor for their views on local considerations, with copies simultaneously sent to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Union Law Minister.^[23] For High Courts serving multiple states, such as Bombay or Punjab and Haryana, the Chief Justice coordinates inputs from all relevant Governors and Chief Ministers.^[23] Coordination with the Supreme Court occurs through the CJI's oversight role, ensuring national consistency in judicial appointments. Upon receiving High Court recommendations, the CJI consults two seniormost Supreme Court judges and, where relevant, a Supreme Court judge familiar with the High Court's functioning or the candidate's record.^[23] The Supreme Court collegium—comprising the CJI and two senior judges—then deliberates and forms the binding recommendation forwarded to the Union Government.^[23] The executive may seek clarification but cannot reject the collegium's reiterated view, as affirmed in the Second and Third Judges Cases (1993 and 1998).^[29] For appointing a High Court Chief Justice, the process reverses: the CJI initiates in consultation with the Supreme Court collegium, incorporating the incumbent Chief Justice's input before state consultations.^[23] Transfers of High Court judges under Article 222 follow a similar collegial framework but are primarily initiated by the CJI to address imbalances or administrative needs, with the Supreme Court collegium's recommendation prevailing after considering the views of the concerned High Court Chief Justices.^[23] This mechanism, outlined in the Memorandum of Procedure updated post-2015 National Judicial Appointments Commission judgment, aims to insulate appointments from executive dominance while requiring iterative consultations to resolve disagreements, though no fixed timelines exist beyond initiation guidelines, contributing to occasional delays in filling vacancies.^[23]^[30] As of 2023, High Courts operated with over 30% vacancies on average, partly due to procedural bottlenecks in this coordinated process.^[6]

Detailed Appointment and Transfer Procedures

The appointment of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) under Article 124(2) of the Constitution is initiated by the outgoing CJI, who recommends the senior-most Supreme Court judge deemed fit to the Union Minister of Law and Justice, followed by consultation with the Prime Minister before final advice to the President.^[22] If fitness is in doubt, the outgoing CJI consults the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.^[22] For other Supreme Court judges, the CJI initiates proposals to fill anticipated vacancies by consulting a collegium comprising the four senior-most puisne judges, ensuring inclusion of the judge next in seniority to the CJI (if not already part of the four) and the senior-most judge from the High Court from which the candidate is recommended.^[22] The collegium's opinions are recorded in writing and form the basis of the CJI's binding recommendation, which is transmitted to the central government for onward submission to the President via the Prime Minister.^[22] A medical certificate of fitness is required after government approval, and the appointment is notified in the Gazette of India.^[22] The government may seek clarification or return the recommendation once for reconsideration by the collegium, but upon reiteration by the CJI (with collegium support), it becomes binding.^[5] Appointments to High Courts under Article 217 begin with the Chief Justice of the High Court (HC CJ) initiating proposals for permanent judges at least six months before vacancies arise, in consultation with two senior-most judges of that High Court, focusing on candidates from the Bar or subordinate judiciary based on merit, integrity, and suitability.^[23] These recommendations are forwarded to the Supreme Court collegium (CJI and two senior-most Supreme Court judges familiar with the High Court), which may modify or approve after consulting the HC CJ and any relevant Supreme Court judge who has served in that High Court.^[23] The views of the state governor and Chief Minister are obtained by the central government on the collegium's recommendation before the Prime Minister advises the President.^[23] For High Court Chief Justices under Article 217(1), the CJI initiates the process at least one month before a vacancy, consulting two senior Supreme Court judges and one Supreme Court judge acquainted with the High Court's functioning, with a preference for appointing from outside the High Court to ensure diversity.^[23] State government input is sought, and the recommendation follows the same route to the President.^[23] Transfers of High Court judges under Article 222 are proposed by the CJI in consultation with the Supreme Court collegium (CJI and four senior-most judges), initiated for public interest without requiring the judge's consent, after ascertaining views from the Chief Justices of the concerned High Courts and relevant Supreme Court judges.^[23] The collegium's decision is forwarded to the government, which may seek reasons or return once for reconsideration, but reiteration makes it binding, with the Prime Minister advising the President for notification.^[23]^[31] Supreme Court judges are not subject to transfer, as their appointments are to the apex court without inter-court mobility.^[22]

Role of the Executive in the Process

In the collegium system, the executive's role in judicial appointments is limited to consultation, scrutiny for basic eligibility, and a single opportunity for reconsideration, as governed by the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) and Supreme Court interpretations emphasizing judicial primacy. For Supreme Court judges, the Chief Justice of India (CJI), after collegium deliberation, forwards the recommendation to the Union Minister of Law and Justice, who examines the candidate's eligibility under Article 124 and may raise concerns on fitness or suggest alternatives via correspondence with the CJI before escalating to the Prime Minister for presidential advice.^[22] The government possesses no veto power; it may return the recommendation once for collegium reconsideration, but upon reiteration—typically unanimous—the executive must notify the appointment via Gazette, as affirmed in the Second Judges Case (1993), where the Supreme Court ruled that the executive's role is advisory and subordinate to the judiciary's binding recommendation.^[6] For High Court appointments under Article 217, the process incorporates state executive input alongside central scrutiny. The Supreme Court collegium, informed by the High Court collegium's proposals and consultations with the state Governor and Chief Minister on suitability, forwards recommendations to the central government, which verifies antecedents through intelligence agencies and may return for reconsideration once if objections arise on grounds like integrity or diversity.^[23] Reiterated recommendations bind the President, with the executive facilitating formalities such as warrant issuance, though delays have occurred—e.g., in 2022-2023, executive objections stalled over 100 High Court proposals pending collegium review, highlighting friction without altering the judiciary's final authority.^[32] This constrained executive involvement stems from constitutional interpretations in the Third Judges Case (1998), which clarified that "consultation" with the executive implies judicial concurrence overriding governmental dissent post-reconsideration, aiming to insulate appointments from political influence while allowing limited input on national security or ethical lapses verified empirically through agency reports.^[27] Instances of executive pushback, such as returns citing incomplete Intelligence Bureau inputs, have not overturned collegium decisions but have extended timelines, with data showing average appointment lags of 6-12 months in contested cases from 2018-2023.^[33]

Core Principles and Intended Benefits

Primacy of Judiciary in Appointments

The primacy of the judiciary in appointments under the collegium system stems from the Supreme Court's interpretation of Articles 124(2) and 217(1) of the Indian Constitution, which mandate consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) but do not explicitly define its binding nature.^[34] In the Second Judges Case (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, decided October 6, 1993), a nine-judge bench overruled prior precedents favoring executive dominance and held that "consultation" entails the CJI's opinion—formed collectively with a collegium of senior judges—carrying primacy over the executive's view in recommending judges for the Supreme Court and High Courts.^[35] This ruling positioned the judiciary as the initiator and final arbiter of selections, with the executive's role confined to formal approval by the President, who acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers.^[18] The Third Judges Case (In re Special Reference No. 1 of 1998, decided November 28, 1998) further entrenched this primacy by expanding the collegium to include the CJI and the four senior-most Supreme Court judges for apex court appointments.^[21] It clarified the iterative process: the executive may object to a collegium recommendation and return it once for reconsideration, but if the collegium—comprising at least three members—reiterates its view by majority, the recommendation becomes binding, leaving no discretion for further executive veto.^[36] This mechanism ensures that appointments prioritize judicial consensus on merit, integrity, and competence, as assessed by peers insulated from political pressures.^[29] This judicial primacy was reaffirmed as part of the Constitution's basic structure in the Fourth Judges Case (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, decided October 16, 2015), where a five-judge bench invalidated the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act of 2014 for vesting equal or executive-weighted voting in selections, which the court deemed would undermine independence.^[25] The intended benefit lies in causal protection against executive capture, drawing from historical precedents like the 1973 supersession of senior judges by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's government during the Emergency (1975-1977), where political loyalty influenced elevations over judicial dissent.^[1] By vesting initiative and finality in the judiciary, the system aims to foster impartial adjudication, theoretically reducing incentives for judges to favor ruling regimes in politically sensitive cases.^[37] Empirically, proponents argue this structure has enabled the judiciary to resist overt politicization, as evidenced by post-1993 appointments proceeding despite executive delays or objections in over 200 instances between 1993 and 2015, without recorded supersessions based on ideology.^[38] However, the principle's effectiveness hinges on internal collegium transparency, which remains limited by the absence of codified criteria beyond broad constitutional mandates.^[39]

Criteria for Judicial Selection

The collegium system prioritizes seniority as a primary factor in judicial selections, particularly for elevations to the Supreme Court, where the Chief Justice of India must be the seniormost judge considered fit for the role under Article 124(2) of the Constitution.^[22] This approach aims to reward experience and institutional knowledge while guarding against arbitrary executive interference, though seniority is not absolute and yields to assessments of overall suitability. For High Court appointments, inter-se seniority among candidates from the same court informs rankings, ensuring continuity in judicial hierarchies.^[23] Merit is evaluated through subjective judgments on legal competence, analytical ability, and judicial temperament, with the collegium seeking inputs from senior judges familiar with the candidate's High Court performance.^[22] Candidates from the bar or service are assessed for "equipment in law," fairness, and problem-solving capacity, as outlined in the Memorandum of Procedure, to identify those capable of handling complex constitutional matters impartially.^[23] This merit-based filter, derived from the Second Judges Case (1993), emphasizes intellectual honesty and ability to comprehend intricate legal issues over rote experience.^[9] Integrity and character form a non-negotiable core, with the collegium probing candidates' reputations within the legal fraternity and society for any ethical lapses or biases that could undermine public trust.^[23] Medical fitness certificates verify physical and mental suitability, excluding those with disqualifying conditions.^[22] For High Courts, selections maintain a conventional ratio—approximately two-thirds from judicial officers and one-third from advocates—to balance practical experience with advocacy skills, preventing dominance by any single cadre.^[23] Regional diversity and balanced High Court representation are considered to foster a judiciary reflective of India's federal structure, avoiding over-reliance on judges from fewer states.^[22] These criteria, while intended to promote excellence and independence, rely on confidential deliberations without codified metrics, leading to reliance on peer judgments rather than transparent benchmarks.^[27]

Empirical Case for Judicial Independence

Cross-country empirical studies demonstrate a robust positive correlation between de facto judicial independence and economic growth. Analysis of 104 countries from 1990 to 2008 reveals that improvements in actual judicial independence—measured by perceptions of enforceability of court decisions without executive interference—significantly boost annual GDP per capita growth by 1.3 to 1.7 percentage points when shifting from dependence to full independence.^[40] This effect holds across income levels, including developing economies, where independent judiciaries reduce risks of expropriation and enhance investor confidence by upholding contracts and property rights under the rule of law.^[40] De jure provisions alone, such as constitutional guarantees, show no such impact, underscoring the importance of practical primacy in appointments to insulate judges from political pressure.^[41] In India's context, the absence of judicial independence during the 1975–1977 Emergency provides a stark historical counter-example, where executive supersession of senior judges and appointments of pliant successors enabled rulings like ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976), which suspended habeas corpus and fundamental rights for over 100,000 detentions without trial.^[1] This period of executive dominance correlated with widespread erosion of civil liberties and economic uncertainty, as arbitrary state actions deterred investment and prolonged authoritarian measures until the government's electoral defeat in 1977.^[42] Post-Emergency judicial assertions, culminating in the Second and Third Judges Cases (1993), shifted appointment primacy to the judiciary via the Collegium, empirically reducing supersessions—none have occurred since 1977—and enabling the Supreme Court to check executive overreach in over 20 major cases annually on average since 2000, including invalidation of electoral malpractices and corruption schemes.^[1] The Collegium's structure has facilitated greater regional balance in Supreme Court appointments, with the share from the top four High Courts dropping from 45% under executive dominance (1947–1993) to 30% post-1993, representing all 19 eligible High Courts compared to 18 previously, which mitigates localized political capture and promotes nationwide impartiality.^[43] This compositional shift aligns with global findings that diversified, insulated judiciaries correlate with stronger rule-of-law enforcement, as evidenced by India's judiciary scoring higher on absence of improper influence (0.48/1.0) than the executive (0.39/1.0) in the 2023 World Justice Project Index, supporting sustained protection of rights amid political transitions. While pendency and enforcement challenges persist, the system's insulation has empirically preserved the judiciary's role in fostering long-term economic stability by deterring arbitrary governance, as independent courts reduce perceived risks that hinder growth in emerging markets.^[40]

Criticisms and Empirical Failures

Opacity and Absence of Accountability

The collegium's decision-making process operates without public disclosure of internal deliberations, criteria evaluations, or rationales for recommending or rejecting candidates for judicial appointments and transfers. While final resolutions are published on the Supreme Court website, the absence of explanatory notes fosters perceptions of secrecy and arbitrariness.^[3] This lack of transparency was explicitly critiqued by dissenting judges in the 2015 Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India case, where Justices J. Chelameswar and Kurian Joseph described the system as deficient in "transparency, accountability and objectivity," arguing that confidential proceedings undermine public trust without empirical justification for such closure.^[44] Accountability mechanisms for collegium members remain virtually nonexistent, as there is no internal review process, appellate body, or external oversight to scrutinize selections beyond the limited executive consultation under Article 124(2) of the Constitution. Impeachment under Article 124(4) applies only to post-appointment misconduct, not to errors in the appointment process itself, rendering the collegium insulated from consequences for nepotistic or ideologically skewed choices.^[45] Critics, including Law Minister Kiren Rijiju in 2022, have highlighted this void, noting that opaque selections erode institutional legitimacy without verifiable safeguards against bias.^[46] Empirical manifestations of this opacity include stalled recommendations and unexplained delays; for instance, as of 2023, over 30% of High Court vacancies persisted amid collegium-executive standoffs, with no public accounting for repeated deferrals of specific nominees.^[47] Recent controversies, such as the 2025 transfer of Justice Yashwant Varma from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court, drew criticism from senior advocate Indira Jaising for the collegium's failure to provide any rationale, amplifying calls for mandatory disclosures to align with democratic norms.^[48] Such incidents underscore how the system's design prioritizes judicial autonomy over verifiable processes, contrasting with transparent merit-based evaluations in jurisdictions like the United States or United Kingdom, where public hearings or published assessments mitigate similar risks.^[49]

Evidence of Nepotism, Regional, and Ideological Biases

Critics of the collegium system have highlighted nepotism, often termed the "uncle judge syndrome," wherein relatives of incumbent or former judges receive preferential consideration for appointments, perpetuating a closed network within the judiciary. In 2015, the central government alleged rampant favoritism, noting that among lists of recommended high court judges submitted by various collegiums, a substantial number—such as 73 out of pending names—included sons of judges or relatives of political leaders, particularly from high courts like Allahabad.^[50] In 2019, Justice S.N. Shukla of the Allahabad High Court wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, accusing the system of opaqueness, nepotism, and caste-based favoritism in elevations, claiming it undermined merit-based selection.^[51] Such practices are said to favor lawyers from influential chambers or judicial families, with estimates suggesting that up to 50% of high court judges and over 33% of Supreme Court judges have familial ties to the bench, though comprehensive empirical audits remain absent due to the system's lack of transparency.^[52]^[53] Regional biases manifest in the uneven representation of judges from various high courts in Supreme Court elevations, despite the collegium's stated aim of broadening geographic diversity. An empirical analysis found that while the collegium reduced dominance by the top four high courts (Allahabad, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras) from 45% under executive appointments to 30%, persistent gaps endure, with no judges elevated to the Supreme Court from high courts in Jharkhand, Meghalaya, Orissa, Sikkim, Tripura, or Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh since 2018.^[43]^[54] Northeastern states remain severely underrepresented, with only two judges from the Gauhati High Court serving as of 2023, none evidently from Scheduled Tribes or Christian communities, potentially skewing perspectives on region-specific legal issues.^[55] This imbalance raises concerns that the collegium prioritizes familiarity with dominant high courts over inclusive regional sourcing, contributing to perceptions of an elite, urban-centric judiciary.^[54] Ideological and social biases are evident in the overrepresentation of upper-caste backgrounds and underrepresentation of marginalized groups, reflecting a preference for candidates aligned with the collegium's established worldview. As of 2023, at least 12 of 33 Supreme Court judges (36.4%) hailed from Brahmin communities, far exceeding their ~5% share of India's population, while Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes constitute minimal proportions.^[55] In high court appointments approved by the Supreme Court collegium between 2020 and 2025, only 15 of 221 judges (6.8%) were from SC/ST categories, and 32 (14.5%) from OBCs, with 79% classified as forward castes over a recent five-year span, indicating systemic exclusion that favors continuity over diverse ideological inputs.^[56]^[57] Critics, including senior advocates like Kapil Sibal, argue this fosters ideological homogeneity, with the collegium allegedly sidelining nominees perceived as executive-aligned or ideologically divergent, as seen in repeated reiterations of recommendations despite government objections on grounds of merit or bias.^[58] Such patterns suggest a self-reinforcing mechanism that privileges interpretive approaches rooted in upper-caste, elite experiences, potentially biasing outcomes in cases involving social justice or federalism.^[59]

Contribution to Judicial Vacancies and Delays

The collegium system's protracted and opaque recommendation process has significantly contributed to persistent judicial vacancies, particularly in High Courts, where appointments require consensus among senior judges without formalized timelines or transparent criteria. As of October 2025, High Courts across India faced approximately 330 vacant judge positions out of a sanctioned strength exceeding 1,100, representing about 30% understaffing, a level that has hovered between 30-40% for years despite periodic efforts to fill posts.^[60]^[61] This vacancy rate stems in part from the collegium's internal delays in deliberating and forwarding names, as evidenced by instances where recommendations languish for months due to disagreements over candidate suitability or regional representation, without mechanisms to expedite consensus.^[62]^[63] These vacancies directly exacerbate judicial delays, as understaffed benches handle disproportionate caseloads, leading to a national backlog surpassing 5 crore pending cases as of late 2025, with High Courts bearing over 60 lakh cases alone.^[61]^[64] Empirical analyses link the collegium's slow pace—often involving repeated iterations on candidate lists without clear resolution protocols—to failure in matching retirements and elevations, resulting in judge-to-population ratios as low as 15-21 per million, far below global benchmarks for efficient adjudication.^[65]^[62] For instance, between 2020 and 2024, High Court vacancies contributed to a 20% surge in pendency, as fewer judges meant deferred hearings and prolonged trials, undermining timely justice delivery.^[66] Critics, including former Chief Justices, have highlighted the collegium's lack of accountability for these delays, noting that without external benchmarks or data-driven selection metrics, the system prioritizes subjective judgments over volume, perpetuating a cycle where vacancies beget further backlogs and erode public trust in judicial efficacy.^[67] While executive clearances also factor into timelines, the collegium's primacy in initiating recommendations places primary responsibility for proactive gap-filling on the judiciary itself, a role it has empirically underperformed amid structural opacity.^[68]

Conflicts with Executive and Erosion of Checks

The collegium system's assertion of primacy in judicial appointments has repeatedly led to standoffs with the executive branch, particularly when the government objects to recommended candidates or delays clearances, as seen in multiple instances since 2022. For example, in January 2023, the Union government criticized the collegium for lacking social diversity in selections, accusing it of appointing judges from narrow backgrounds while holding back recommendations, which escalated into a public collision over high court appointments.^[69] Similar tensions persisted into 2025, with the government adopting a "pick and choose" approach, leaving 29 advocates—including five women—in limbo for high court elevations as of July, prompting accusations of selective stalling based on undisclosed intelligence or ideological grounds.^[70] These conflicts manifest in procedural delays that exacerbate judicial vacancies, undermining the executive's constitutional role under Article 124, which mandates consultation with the President (exercised via the executive) before appointments. The collegium's rejection of executive returns—often on grounds of judicial supremacy established in the Second and Third Judges Cases—effectively sidelines meaningful input from the elected branch, as evidenced by the government's repeated returns of names without resolution, leading to over 300 high court vacancies persisting into late 2025. Critics, including legal scholars, argue this dynamic erodes checks and balances by transforming appointments into a judicial monopoly, where the executive's advisory veto is rendered toothless, fostering a self-perpetuating judiciary insulated from democratic accountability.^[46] The erosion is compounded by instances of perceived executive influence creeping back through informal pressures, such as the Supreme Court collegium's reversal on Justice Atul Sreedharan's transfer in October 2025 amid government requests, which raised alarms about compromised independence and blurred lines in the power equilibrium.^[71] Empirically, this imbalance has contributed to systemic delays, with the Supreme Court in September 2025 questioning the Centre over prolonged holds on collegium recommendations, highlighting how mutual intransigence weakens the separation of powers rather than reinforcing it.^[72] Unlike systems with balanced commissions, India's collegium lacks institutional mechanisms for resolving deadlocks, allowing conflicts to persist and diminishing the executive's capacity to ensure appointments align with broader national interests like regional representation or anti-corruption scrutiny.^[73]

Defenses and Comparative Analysis

Historical Necessity Post-Emergency

The Indian Emergency, declared on June 25, 1975, by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and lasting until March 21, 1977, exemplified executive overreach that threatened judicial independence, including through manipulations in judicial appointments.^[1] During this period, the government superseded senior judges perceived as unsympathetic, such as the 1973 appointment of Justice A. N. Ray as Chief Justice of India over three more senior colleagues—Justices J. M. Shelat, A. N. Grover, and K. S. Hegde—who had dissented in the Kesavananda Bharati case upholding the basic structure doctrine.^[1] ^[12] Further, in the ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla case of 1976, a 4-1 Supreme Court ruling upheld the suspension of habeas corpus rights, after which the dissenting Justice H. R. Khanna was denied the Chief Justiceship, reinforcing fears of executive packing of the bench with compliant judges.^[1] These actions, including the transfer of 16 High Court judges in 1976 amid censored press coverage, demonstrated how executive dominance in appointments could subordinate the judiciary to political exigencies.^[1] Post-Emergency, the judiciary sought structural safeguards against recurrence, evolving through landmark rulings that shifted appointment primacy from the executive to judicial peers. The First Judges Case (S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981) initially affirmed executive leeway by interpreting constitutional "consultation" as non-binding on the President, but this was overruled in the Second Judges Case (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, 1993), which established the collegium system vesting initiative and primacy with the Chief Justice of India and a collegium of senior judges.^[1]^[29] The Third Judges Case (1998) refined this by expanding the collegium to the CJI plus four senior-most judges for Supreme Court appointments, emphasizing collective judicial deliberation to insulate selections from extraneous influences.^[29] This evolution addressed the historical necessity of preventing executive capture, as evidenced by Emergency-era precedents where supersessions targeted dissenters, potentially eroding the judiciary's role as a check on power.^[1] By prioritizing judicial consultation over executive fiat, the collegium aimed to ensure appointments based on merit, integrity, and competence—criteria vulnerable to political distortion under undivided executive control—thereby preserving the separation of powers under Article 50 of the Constitution.^[29] Proponents argued this self-regulation was essential to avoid repeating the "grievous blow" to constitutionalism from prior interferences, fostering a judiciary capable of independent constitutional review without fear of reprisal.^[74]

Achievements in Resisting Political Capture

The Supreme Court of India's invalidation of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) on October 16, 2015, stands as a pivotal achievement in resisting executive encroachment on judicial appointments. In the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, a five-judge bench ruled 4-1 that the 99th Constitutional Amendment and NJAC Act violated the basic structure doctrine by granting the executive veto power over judicial selections, thereby threatening independence.^[75]^[5] This decision reaffirmed the Collegium's primacy, established through the Second and Third Judges Cases (1993 and 1998), as essential to prevent political dominance akin to pre-1993 executive supersessions of senior judges during the 1970s.^[1] In operational practice, the Collegium has repeatedly asserted its authority by reiterating recommendations for appointments despite executive returns or delays, countering indirect pressures to favor politically aligned candidates. For instance, in January 2023, the Supreme Court Collegium issued four resolutions reiterating five High Court judge nominations previously returned by the Union government, while publicly noting delays averaging over a year and urging adherence to constitutional timelines.^[76] Similar persistence occurred with nominees like Justice K.M. Joseph, recommended for the Supreme Court in May 2018 and appointed after over 13 months of government hesitation linked to his role in a politically sensitive High Court ruling, and Justice Saurabh Kirpal, whose elevation was delayed from 2017 until November 2021 amid reported executive concerns over his personal life, yet ultimately approved following multiple reiterations.^[77] These actions underscore the system's mechanism for insulating selections from extraneous influences, ensuring that appointments prioritize judicial merit over executive preferences.^[78] By maintaining control over elevations and transfers, the Collegium has empirically forestalled overt political capture, as evidenced by the absence of documented executive-imposed judges post-1993, in contrast to earlier eras of interference during national emergencies. This framework has enabled the judiciary to issue rulings adverse to government interests without fear of retaliatory appointments, though delays persist as a point of contention.^[79]

Contrast with Executive-Dominated Systems

In executive-dominated judicial appointment systems, where the head of the executive branch holds primary nomination power—often subject to legislative confirmation—the risk of appointments prioritizing political loyalty over merit is elevated, potentially compromising long-term judicial independence. For instance, in pre-1993 India, before the collegium system's establishment via the Second Judges Case, the executive frequently employed tools like supersession of senior judges, punitive transfers, and withholding confirmations to influence outcomes, as seen in the 1973 bypassing of Justices Shelat, Grover, and Hegde in favor of Justice A.N. Ray, who had supported government positions in prior rulings.^[80] This era, particularly during the 1975-1977 Emergency, illustrated how executive control enabled retaliation against judges issuing adverse decisions, eroding public trust in impartiality.^[81] By contrast, the collegium system transfers effective primacy to a panel of senior judges, insulating selections from direct executive vetoes or ideological impositions, thereby fostering resilience against transient political pressures. Chief Justice B.R. Gavai emphasized in June 2025 that this mechanism ensures judges are appointed "without any interference from the government," preserving the judiciary's role as a check on executive overreach, as demonstrated by the collegium's repeated rejections of executive objections to recommendations since 1993.^[82] Empirical analyses indicate that while both pre- and post-collegium eras maintained diversity in appointees' regional and religious backgrounds, the latter avoided the overt politicization evident in executive-led processes, where appointments often mirrored the ruling regime's preferences.^[83] Comparative examples from other jurisdictions underscore these dynamics; in the United States, presidential nominations combined with Senate confirmation have yielded a Supreme Court whose ideological composition shifted markedly with administrations, as between 2016 and 2020 when three conservative justices were confirmed, intensifying perceptions of partisanship.^[84] Similarly, in systems lacking collegium-like judicial primacy, such as certain transitional democracies, executives have stacked courts to neutralize opposition, leading to institutional capture absent in India's post-1993 framework.^[85] Thus, the collegium's self-governance, despite its accountability challenges, empirically correlates with sustained resistance to executive encroachments, prioritizing institutional autonomy over democratic input in selections.^[43]

Proposed Reforms and Alternatives

The National Judicial Appointments Commission (2014)

The Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, enacted on December 31, 2014, after passage in the Lok Sabha on August 14, 2014, and the Rajya Sabha on August 21, 2014, with ratification by over half the state legislatures, introduced the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to reform the process of appointing judges to India's Supreme Court and High Courts.^[86]^[87] This amendment replaced the collegium system—established by Supreme Court judgments interpreting Articles 124 and 217—by inserting new provisions including Article 124A, which defined the NJAC's composition and functions, alongside amendments to Articles 124(2), 217(1), and others to mandate NJAC recommendations for appointments, elevations, and transfers.^[88] The accompanying National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014, passed concurrently and assented to on the same date, outlined operational details, emphasizing a "transparent and broad-based process" for judicial selections to mitigate the collegium's alleged opacity and absence of executive or external checks.^[89]^[90] The NJAC comprised six members: the Chief Justice of India as chairperson; the two senior-most Supreme Court judges; the Union Minister of Law and Justice; and two "eminent persons" nominated by a committee of the Chief Justice of India, Prime Minister, and Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, with one intended to represent marginalized communities and neither from the judiciary, executive, or legislature to incorporate civil society input.^[5]^[91] Functions included recommending candidates for Supreme Court judgeships (prioritizing seniority for elevations from High Courts) and High Court judgeships (via consultations with state governors and chief ministers), handling transfers, and requiring a simple majority for approvals, though any two members could veto a recommendation to prevent dominance by any subgroup.^[90] Proponents, including the BJP-led government, argued this structure balanced judicial primacy—retaining the Chief Justice's veto potential through alliances with fellow judges—with executive accountability and diverse perspectives, aiming to address empirical issues like judicial vacancies exceeding 40% in High Courts by 2014 and documented delays in collegium-driven appointments.^[89]^[5] The NJAC's framework also mandated criteria such as merit, integrity, and ability to discharge duties impartially, with provisions for eligibility consultations and public notifications for High Court vacancies to enhance transparency over the collegium's closed-door deliberations.^[87] Critics within the judiciary, however, contended that executive inclusion risked politicization, though parliamentary debates highlighted the amendment's intent to democratize a process insulated since the 1993 Second Judges Case, where the Supreme Court had vested primacy in the collegium without statutory backing.^[90] The acts were notified for implementation in early 2015, marking a brief operational window before legal challenges.^[89]

Post-NJAC Judicial Responses and Reiterations

In the wake of the Supreme Court's invalidation of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) on October 16, 2015, a supplementary judgment was delivered on December 16, 2015, by the same Constitution Bench, acknowledging acknowledged shortcomings in the collegium system's operations, such as lack of transparency and subjective decision-making.^[25] The Bench directed the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to formulate a revised Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) in consultation with the Union Government, incorporating objective eligibility criteria (e.g., integrity, legal acumen, and diversity considerations), mandatory recording of reasons for recommendations or rejections, and publication of final resolutions on the Supreme Court's website to enhance accountability without compromising judicial primacy.^[25] This response aimed to self-regulate the collegium internally rather than cede ground to executive involvement, emphasizing that any reform must preserve the judiciary's exclusive domain over appointments as a basic feature of the Constitution.^[25] Negotiations over the revised MoP extended into 2016 and 2017, marked by disputes; the government proposed provisions allowing it to flag national security concerns or seek review, but the Supreme Court rejected these as encroachments on collegium primacy, insisting that executive input be limited to providing intelligence reports for collegium reconsideration, not veto power.^[6] The Court unilaterally adopted the revised MoP on November 3, 2017, which reiterated the collegium's binding recommendations post-reiteration (i.e., if the government returns a name with objections and the collegium re-endorses it, appointment becomes mandatory within specified timelines).^[92] Key additions included attributing reasons for non-selection of eligible candidates and prioritizing seniority and merit, though internal deliberations remained confidential to safeguard candid assessments.^[92] Subsequent judicial affirmations have reinforced this framework amid executive delays. In instances of stalled appointments, such as the 2018 case involving Justice K.M. Joseph's recommendation (returned by the government citing seniority and regional representation), the collegium's reiteration prompted eventual appointment, with the Court implicitly upholding its 2015 primacy doctrine without needing direct intervention.^[93] Similarly, in 2021-2023 disputes over High Court elevations (e.g., Madras and Gujarat benches), the Supreme Court entertained writ petitions on delays but deferred to collegium resolutions, directing the executive to act promptly and clarifying that repeated returns beyond material objections constitute undue interference.^[6] On transparency challenges, the Court in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) 5 SCC 1 ruled that while collegium resolutions must be publicly accessible, detailed deliberations and personal data of candidates are exempt under the Right to Information Act, 2005, prioritizing judicial independence over absolute disclosure to prevent external pressures or character assassination. This stance was reiterated in 2023-2024 obiter, where benches dismissed broader RTI demands, arguing that enhanced website disclosures under the MoP suffice for public scrutiny without inviting political litigation.^[94] Overall, these responses have entrenched the collegium's post-NJAC dominance, with the judiciary resisting legislative or executive alternatives through self-imposed procedural tweaks rather than structural overhaul.^[95]

Contemporary Reform Proposals (2023-2025)

In 2023, the Union Ministry of Law and Justice proposed the formation of Search-cum-Evaluation Committees (SECs) for identifying and assessing candidates for High Court judgeships, aiming to introduce structured merit-based screening prior to collegium recommendations.^[96] These committees, comprising judges, eminent persons, and state officials, were intended to address ad hoc selections and incorporate diversity considerations such as regional representation and gender balance, though implementation remains pending due to collegium reservations.^[97] Ongoing negotiations for revising the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) have centered on embedding objective eligibility criteria, including minimum years of practice, integrity assessments, and performance metrics like case disposal rates, to mitigate perceptions of arbitrariness.^[98] The government emphasized finalizing these updates by 2024 to ensure executive consultation on suitability without veto power, as reiterated in parliamentary statements, but the collegium has prioritized judicial primacy, leading to stalled progress as of 2025.^[30]^[33] Self-initiated changes by the collegium include mandatory interviews for High Court elevation candidates since 2024, evaluating judicial temperament and capacity, alongside a policy excluding applicants with immediate relatives as sitting judges to curb nepotism allegations.^[99] Expert commentaries in 2025 have advocated further transparency measures, such as video-recording collegium deliberations for public archiving and publishing detailed rationales for appointments or rejections, though these remain unimplemented amid concerns over confidentiality.^[100] Broader suggestions, including revisiting a modified National Judicial Appointments Commission with balanced stakeholder input from judiciary, executive, and civil society, have surfaced in policy analyses but lack governmental endorsement, reflecting caution post-2015 invalidation.^[97] These proposals aim to reduce vacancies—exceeding 30% in High Courts as of mid-2025—through expedited processes and expanded judge strength to a 50-per-million ratio, yet judicial resistance underscores tensions between independence and accountability.^[101]

Recent Developments and Ongoing Tensions

Key Appointments and Reiterations (2023-2025)

In 2023, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the appointment of Justice Surya Kant to the Supreme Court, who was sworn in on June 18, 2023, marking an addition from the Punjab and Haryana High Court background.^[102] This followed the Collegium's assessment of judicial experience and seniority norms. Subsequent recommendations in 2024 included Justices Kotiswar Singh and R. Mahadevan on July 11, 2024, with their notifications issued on July 16, 2024, elevating representation from the North-East and underrepresented communities.^[103] The period saw intensified activity in 2025 amid efforts to address vacancies. On January 7, 2025, the Collegium recommended one judge, followed by another on March 6, 2025, contributing to filling slots as retirements occurred. Justice Vikram Nath was appointed effective February 1, 2025. A significant batch came on May 26, 2025, recommending Justices N.V. Anjaria, Vijay Bishnoi, and A.S. Chandurkar, sworn in on May 30, 2025, restoring partial strength. Further, on August 25, 2025, recommendations for Justices Alok Aradhe and Vipul M. Pancholi led to their swearing-in on August 29, 2025, bringing the Supreme Court to its full complement of 34 judges.^[104]^[105]^[106] For High Courts, the Collegium processed numerous recommendations, approving 19 judges for six High Courts on July 29, 2025, and nine for four High Courts on September 16, 2025, emphasizing diversity and merit despite persistent vacancies totaling 331 across High Courts as of late 2024.^[107]^[108]^[27] Reiterations underscored the Collegium's assertion of primacy. In multiple instances, it restated recommendations returned by the executive, with about 15% of proposals under former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud facing initial non-clearance but later reiterated, such as five names restated on January 31, 2024, compelling eventual acceptance.^[32] By June 2025, CJI B.R. Gavai publicly cautioned against selective or segregated processing of recommendations, urging holistic consideration to prevent delays.^[109] In July 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to examine pleas alleging executive delays on reiterated names pending since 2019, highlighting impacts on seniority and judicial efficiency.^[110] A notable October 2025 case involved a shift in the Collegium's recommendation for Justice Sreedharan, prompting debate on potential reiteration to override executive influence.^[71] These actions reinforced the doctrine that reiterated Collegium views bind the executive, as affirmed in prior jurisprudence.^[111]

Transparency Initiatives and Bar Association Demands

The Supreme Court of India has implemented transparency measures by publishing resolutions of the Collegium on its official website, detailing proposals approved for appointments as High Court judges from November 9, 2022, to May 5, 2025.^[106] These resolutions, which began being publicly released more systematically around 2017 for Supreme Court elevations, provide insights into recommendations but do not disclose internal deliberations or dissents.^[112] In May 2025, the Supreme Court introduced updates to the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for judicial appointments, aiming to address transparency gaps, though debates persist over whether Collegium reiterations of recommendations are binding on the executive.^[92] Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, in July 2025, publicly assured "complete transparency" in the Collegium system, emphasizing no compromise on merit while pledging enhancements to ensure societal representation in appointments.^[113] Judicial voices have echoed this, with Justice V.M. Oka advocating in August 2025 for disclosing dissents in Collegium decisions to balance transparency with candidate privacy, amid reports of internal disagreements, such as Justice B.V. Nagarathna's dissent on a recommendation in September 2025.^[114]^[3] The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has repeatedly demanded structural reforms to the Collegium, urging the Chief Justice of India and the Law Minister in September 2025 to finalize the revised MoP without delay to establish a "transparent and equitable framework" for appointments.^[115]^[116] The SCBA highlighted flaws including opacity in deliberations, neglect of merit-based criteria, under-representation of women and Supreme Court Bar talent, and insufficient diversity, arguing these undermine judicial legitimacy and efficiency.^[117]^[118] These calls align with broader critiques from legal bodies seeking criteria-based accountability to prevent arbitrary selections while preserving independence from executive interference.^[119]

Persistent Vacancy and Efficiency Metrics

The collegium system has contributed to persistent vacancies in India's higher judiciary through protracted recommendation processes and occasional reiterations of names, leading to delays between collegium proposals and executive clearances. As of July 21, 2025, the Supreme Court operated with 33 judges against a sanctioned strength of 34, while High Courts had 371 vacancies out of 1,122 sanctioned posts.^[120] By October 2025, only two High Courts maintained full complement of judges, with the Allahabad High Court reporting 76 vacancies and the Bombay High Court 26 out of 94 sanctioned positions.^[121] ^[60] High vacancy rates, often exceeding 30% in several High Courts, stem from High Court collegiums' irregular or delayed submissions of names, compounded by the Supreme Court collegium's scrutiny and occasional returns for reconsideration.^[122] These vacancies directly impair judicial efficiency, as understaffed benches handle reduced caseloads, prolonging case disposal times. Nationwide pendency stood at over 5.3 crore cases in October 2025, including more than 4.7 crore in subordinate courts and approximately 6 million in High Courts.^[61] In the Supreme Court, pendency climbed to 88,047 cases by August 2025, despite disposing of 46,309 out of 52,630 filings from January to August, yielding an 88% disposal rate that nonetheless fails to offset inflows.^[123] ^[124] Judicial shortages correlate with disposal rates lagging 3-5% below potential annually, as vacant posts reduce hearing capacity and increase average case age, with some matters pending over 30 years.^[125] District judiciary vacancies, exceeding 5,000 posts or 23% of sanctioned strength as of September 2025, amplify upstream pressures on High Courts and the Supreme Court, as unresolved lower-court cases feed into higher pendency.^[126] ^[127] Empirical analyses link collegium-induced delays to these metrics, arguing that vacancies deny timely access to justice and strain institutional output, though proponents counter that executive interference in prior regimes caused similar backlogs.^[62]^[128]

References

[1]
How the Emergency birthed the Collegium system
Jun 29, 2025 · The Collegium system for judicial appointments and transfers, which evolved through decisions of the Supreme Court, is a prime example of this long shadow.
[2]
Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record ... vs Union Of India on 6 ...
As per the second statement, as on 20.5.1993, out of the total strength Judges in the whole of India in the 18 High Courts, there are 13 Judges belonging to ...
[3]
A crack in the Collegium's wall of secrecy - Supreme Court Observer
Sep 3, 2025 · ... Supreme Court. Allahabad, Bombay and Punjab & Haryana—the only ... The Collegium system is a product of the judiciary's long-standing ...Missing: India | Show results with:India
[4]
Judicial Appointments in Limbo: Supreme Court Expresses ...
Nov 20, 2023 · Analysis. Law Ministry to keep close eye on Collegium. The Collegium system will be tested again with scheduled retirements in 2019 and 2020.
[5]
Why did the SC strike down the NJAC Act in 2015?
Apr 4, 2025 · The NJAC aimed to replace the Collegium system, under which the senior-most sitting judges of the Supreme Court recommend judges to be appointed to the higher ...
[6]
https://prsindia.org/theprsblog/rethinking-judicial-appointments-collegium-vs-commission
[7]
Article 124: Establishment and constitution of Supreme Court
(1) There shall be a Supreme Court of India consisting of a Chief Justice of India and such number of other judges not being less than seven as Parliament may ...
[8]
Judicial Appointments - Drishti Judiciary
Sep 2, 2024 · The Constitution of India has specific provisions for appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. This process has evolved over time.
[9]
Collegium System and NJAC for Appointment of Judges - BYJU'S
UPSC Questions related to Collegium System and NJAC. Q1. How many judges are in a collegium? Currently, there are five members in the collegium system of India.<|separator|>
[10]
A Committed Judiciary: Indira Gandhi and Judicial Appointments
The tipping point in the history of judicial appointments in India was the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala ((1973) 4 ...
[11]
1973 April 26- The Saddest Day In The History Of Our Free Institution
Apr 25, 2023 · On 26th April 1973—half a century ago today—is the only day in the history of the Supreme Court that the Bar struck and called the action of the ...
[12]
Supersession of Judges- The Disastrous Sequel to Kesavananda ...
Apr 26, 2020 · On 26 April 1973 (i.e. Forty-seven years ago from today) Mrs. Gandhi broke this convention and superseded the senior most Judge of the Court ...
[13]
How many times has the senior-most Judge of the Supreme Court ...
Feb 10, 2022 · DESK BRIEF: There have been three supersessions at the Supreme Court of India. Last week at the SCO, we added a new profile to our 'Judges' page ...
[14]
Explainer / First Judges Case, Second Judges Case & Third Judges ...
Jan 17, 2023 · The collegium system is a forum including the Chief Justice of India and four senior-most judges of the SC, which recommends appointments and transfers of ...
[15]
S.P. Gupta vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 December, 1981
What happened in this case was that the Ratlam Municipality failed to carry out its statutory duty of constructing a drain pipe to carry the filth etc. on a ...
[16]
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India : case analysis - iPleaders
Sep 8, 2022 · In this case, with the help of a 9 judge bench, the Court overruled the 'First Judges case' and held that the advice given by the Chief Justice ...Introduction · Judgement of the Court in S.P... · Analysis of the case of S.P...
[17]
SP Gupta vs Union of India [First Judges Transfer Case] - LawBhoomi
Sep 14, 2023 · Gupta vs Union of India, was a 1981 Supreme Court case that established the collegium system in India. The case emphasized the executive's role ...Issues Raised · Contentions of the Parties in... · Judgement of the Court in SP...
[18]
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v Union of India ...
The Second Judges Case (1993) is formally titled Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India. This case emerged from a constitutional ...
[19]
Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association vs. Union of India ...
Sep 22, 2024 · Union of India(1993) is popularly known as the Second Judges Case. What was held in the “Second Judges Case”? The Hon'ble Apex Court in ...Details of the case · Judgement in Supreme Court... · Analysis of Supreme Court...
[20]
Third Judges Case (In Re Presidential Reference AIR 1999 SC 1)
Mar 12, 2025 · The Third Judges Case interpreted "consultation" to require the CJI and four senior-most judges, not just the CJI, for judicial appointments.Background and Context · Facts of Re Presidential... · Issues Presented
[21]
[PDF] Special-Reference-1-of-1998-Third-Judges-Case.pdf
The case concerns the appointment and transfer of judges, specifically judicial review of transfers, consultation with other judges, and the Chief Justice's ...
[22]
Memorandum of procedure of appointment of Supreme Court Judges
Aug 11, 2021 · The Chief Justice of India and the Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President under clause (2) of Article 124 of the Constitution.Missing: 1998 clarifications
[23]
Memorandum of procedure of appointment of High Court Judges
Aug 11, 2021 · The process of appointment must be initiated well in time to ensure the completion at least one month prior to the date of anticipated vacancy.Missing: clarifications | Show results with:clarifications
[24]
[PDF] GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE ...
Hon'ble Supreme Court while hearing WP(C) 13 of 2015 in NJAC matter issued detailed Order on 16-12-2015 on supplementing the Memorandum of. Procedure (MoP) ...
[25]
NJAC or JSAB? - Supreme Court Observer
Mar 31, 2025 · Conscious of the shortcomings of the Collegium system, the Constitution Bench in the NJAC case pronounced a supplementary judgement on 16 ...
[26]
What's Memorandum of Procedure & why it's at heart of govt-SC ...
Jan 18, 2023 · MoP frames rules and procedures for appointment of judges to SC & HCs. SC says current version is final but govt insists finalisation is still 'pending'.Missing: history post-
[27]
Collegium System of Judicial Appointments in India - Drishti IAS
Sep 3, 2025 · Second Judges Case (1993): The SC overruled the First Judges Case and held that "consultation" in judicial appointments actually meant ...<|separator|>
[28]
Explained: How Supreme Court judges are appointed
Sep 4, 2021 · The ruling on this established a quorum and majority vote in the collegium to make recommendations to the President. In 2014, the NDA ...
[29]
Collegium System in India: Evolution, Criticisms & Reform - PMF IAS
Second Judges Case (1993):. SC overruled the First Judge Case and held that the CJI has the greatest significance in appointing and transferring judges. The ...
[30]
Judicial appointments - Memorandum of Procedure (MoP)
Sep 25, 2025 · Fourth Judges Case (2015) – The SC struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act and the 99th Constitutional ...
[31]
[PDF] GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE ...
In order to replace the Collegium system of appointments of Judges of the Supreme Court and. High Courts with a more broad-based, transparent, accountable ...Missing: Post- clarifications
[32]
15 percent of names proposed by Chandrachud Collegium for HC ...
Nov 22, 2024 · In the two-year tenure of D.Y. Chandrachud, the Collegium led by him recommended 184 names to the higher judiciary. All 17 proposals for the ...
[33]
https://visionias.in/current-affairs/news-today/2025-10-24/polity-and-governance/union-government-asks-chief-justice-of-india-cji-to-recommend-a-successor
[34]
Untitled
... collegium disfavour the appointment of a particular person? The majority judgment in the second Judges case has said that if "the final opinion of the Chief ...
[35]
SC won't review 1993 order that set up 'collegium system'. What is it?
Nov 6, 2019 · A nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has dismissed a petition seeking a review of its 1993 verdict in the so-called Second Judges Case, ...
[36]
The Issues in the Collegium - Shankar IAS Parliament
First Judges Case, 1981 (SP Gupta case) - The Supreme Court ruled that ... Third Judges Case, 1998 - The court clarified that the collegium would comprise.Missing: details | Show results with:details
[37]
https://virtuositylegal.com/collegium-system-a-tool-for-judicial-independence-or-judicial-autocracy-an-interview-with-adv-ashish-goel/
[38]
Rethinking judicial appointments: Collegium vs. Commission
... collegium system with that of an independent commission, called the National ... Supreme Court, (iii) the Union Law Minister, and (iv) two eminent ...
[39]
Judicial Independence is not Judicial Primacy: Reassessing the ...
Aug 14, 2025 · According to the majority, this infringement arose because the NJAC diluted the primacy of the judiciary in the selection process. The judgment ...
[40]
[PDF] Economic Growth and Judicial Independence, a Dozen Years On
If the judiciary is not independent from the execu- tive and the legislature, citizens will not trust in the rule of law. (3) Conflict between government ...
[41]
Economic growth and judicial independence, a dozen years on
This paper presents more recent objective data on de jure and de facto judicial independence (JI) and strongly confirms previous results.
[42]
Emergency: When Indira Gandhi put democracy on pause in India
Jun 24, 2025 · A bombshell verdict by the Allahabad High Court had found Gandhi guilty of electoral malpractice and invalidated her 1971 election win. Facing ...
[43]
[PDF] An Empirical Assessment of the Collegium's Impact on Composition ...
3 Headed by the Chief Justice of India, the collegium includes four senior most judges of the Supreme Court when appointing a judge in the Supreme Court and two ...
[44]
Vacant posts remain collegium system's biggest challenge - Mint
Oct 20, 2015 · Justices J. Chelameswar and Kurian Joseph, in their opinions, pointed out that the collegium system lacks “transparency, accountability and ...Missing: opacity | Show results with:opacity
[45]
Towards a new Judicial Commission to maintain independence ...
Apr 4, 2025 · While the Collegium has addressed these incidents, due to constitutional safeguards, the opacity of the Collegium itself, and the ad-hoc nature ...
[46]
The Contest Over the Collegium System in India - South Asia@LSE
Jun 5, 2023 · The appointment of judges to High Courts and the Supreme Court in India has been in the spotlight in the last decade, following an Act ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[47]
Collegium System in the Indian Judiciary Needs to be Reformed for ...
The collegium system must not see itself as being above the safeguards and measures for transparency, accountability and demographic representation.
[48]
Senior Advocate criticises lack of transparency in SC Collegium's ...
Mar 22, 2025 · Senior advocate Indira Jaising has raised transparency concerns over the transfer of Justice Yashwant Varma from Delhi High Court to Allahabad High Court.Missing: system | Show results with:system
[49]
The Collegium System and the Demand for Transparency in Judicial ...
Aug 30, 2025 · The lack of transparency in India's Collegium system becomes starker when compared to practices in other democracies: ... opacity. Collegium ...
[50]
Favouritism rampant in collegium system: Centre - Times of India
May 9, 2015 · Favouritism rampant in collegium system: Centre ... The government kept up its offensive against the judiciary's monopoly in the appointment of ...
[51]
'Nepotism' in Collegium System, Alleges Allahabad HC Judge in ...
Jul 3, 2019 · In a letter dated July 1, Pandey has alleged that the system is biased and plagued by opaqueness and favouritism, Bar&Bench reported. It is ...
[52]
Judiciary vs executive | The collegium clash - India Today
Dec 9, 2022 · Many critics claim that the collegium system promotes nepotism—uncle judge syndrome—overlooking claims of better-suited lawyers. For ...
[53]
Justice B.V. Nagarathna's Dissent: A Spotlight on Collegium Opacity ...
Aug 26, 2025 · the collegium appointments nepotism August 2025 the notes with Court transparency took Justice appointments. the earlier reported Court ...most judges, makes initial recommendations for appointments for ...scrap collegium system for merit based selection - FacebookMore results from www.facebook.com
[54]
How representation gap in Supreme Court impacts justice - The Week
Aug 3, 2025 · Supreme Court appointments consistently fail to reflect adequate regional, gender, and social diversity, particularly from various High ...
[55]
Supreme Court Review 2023: The diversity problem remained ...
With the 2023 appointments, it appears that at least 12 of the current 33 sitting judges (36.4 percent of the Court) come from Brahmin communities. Brahmins, ...
[56]
Just 15 of 221 HC judges were SC/ST: Supreme Court publishes ...
May 6, 2025 · In terms of social representation, 32 of the candidates approved by the SCC belong to Other Backward Classes (OBC), that is, 14.5%. Eight (3.6%) ...
[57]
79% of judges appointed in 5 years were forward castes. SC/ST ...
Feb 17, 2025 · Chandru: 79% of judges appointed in 5 years were forward castes. SC/ST, OBC representation among judges has declined. Only 10% of the Indian ...Missing: bias | Show results with:bias
[58]
Kapil Sibal writes: The Collegium system has failed India - CivilsDaily
Jan 3, 2024 · Perceived ideological biases in judicial appointments. Lack of a transparent and merit-oriented system for judge selection. Key Terms ...
[59]
The uneven scales of justice: Caste disparities in higher judicial ...
May 30, 2025 · Its lack of formal inclusion criteria has allowed caste dominance to persist, raising serious questions about the judiciary's commitment to ...Missing: bias | Show results with:bias
[60]
Only two HCs have full strength of judges amid pendency load
Oct 5, 2025 · NEW DELHI: India's High Courts are facing a serious manpower crisis, with 330 judges' posts lying vacant across 25 states. The Allahabad High ...
[61]
https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/india-judicial-delay-supreme-court-police-judges/article70185758.ece
[62]
Delay in Appointment of High Court Judges Amounts to Denial of ...
Jul 2, 2025 · However, persistent delays in this appointment process have led to a growing crisis of judicial vacancies and mounting case backlogs, severely ...
[63]
Judicial Vacancies in India: A Deep Dive into the Crisis and ...
Causes: Key reasons include periodic retirements, the slow Collegium process, low salaries, and delays in lower court recruitment exams. Impact: These vacancies ...
[64]
Pendency and Vacancies in the Judiciary - Vital Stats
In the High Courts, 42% of the total sanctioned posts for judges were vacant (465 out of 1,098). Five High Courts (Telangana, Patna, Rajasthan, Odisha, and ...
[65]
Only 15 judges per million population in the country: 2025 India ...
Apr 15, 2025 · While the vacancies in high courts stood at 33 per cent of the total sanctioned strength, the report claimed 21 per cent vacancies in 2025, ...
[66]
One judge for 18.7 lakh people: vacancy, pendency crises plague ...
May 3, 2025 · The 'India Justice Report 2025' underscores the depth of the crisis. Between 2020 and 2024, pending cases in Indian courts surged nearly 20%.Missing: statistics | Show results with:statistics
[67]
[PDF] Judicial Appointments and the Collegium System in India - ijrpr
The collegium has been crucial in safeguarding judicial independence but faces ongoing criticism for its opacity, discretionary practices, insufficient ...<|separator|>
[68]
SC collegium not a search committee, explain delay in judges ...
Sep 20, 2024 · ... appointments recommended by its Collegium but pending clearance from the Centre. Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud stressed the Collegium's ...
[69]
Indian govt, Supreme Court on collision course over appointment of ...
Jan 11, 2023 · But the federal Law and Justice Ministry has accused the collegium system of appointing a higher judiciary with no social diversity. Nearly four ...Missing: clashes | Show results with:clashes
[70]
Centre's pick & choose policy hits HC judge appointments | India News
Jul 4, 2025 · The Union government continues its selective approach to appointing High Court judges, leaving 29 advocates, including five women, in prolonged uncertainty.
[71]
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-collegiums-shift-in-justice-sreedharans-appointment-raises-concerns-over-executive-influence-in-judicial-independence/article70188965.ece
[72]
SC questions Centre over delay in judicial appointment - News Arena
Oct 16, 2025 · The ongoing tension between the judiciary and the government regarding the appointment of judges reached a new level on September 20, when the ...
[73]
Supreme Court collegium: The growing row over picking judges in ...
Jan 24, 2023 · Judges in India's top courts are selected by their colleagues through a mechanism called the collegium system. The nearly two decades-old ...
[74]
A 'Grievous Blow': The Supersession of Judges | Oxford Academic
The government's vigorously proclaimed motive for the supersession was furtherance of the social revolution, for which an accomodating Supreme Court was needed.
[75]
SC Bench strikes down NJAC Act as 'unconstitutional and void'
Oct 17, 2015 · The Supreme Court on Friday rejected the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act and the 99th Constitutional Amendment.
[76]
In Four Resolutions, SC Collegium Strikes Back at Union Government
Jan 20, 2023 · The SC Collegium reiterated five names, highlighted delays caused by the Union, and gave insight into Union's Considerations in appointments.
[77]
Supreme Court collegium bats for 12 despite govt objection
Oct 18, 2021 · Some of the collegium's recommendations have been repeated twice since 2018 and have been pending with the government because of “adverse” ...<|separator|>
[78]
The Intricacies of India's Collegium System - Das Legal
The Indian Constitution, approved in 1950, establishes the Supreme Court and the High Courts, but it makes no express reference to the Collegium system. The ...<|separator|>
[79]
Collegium System of Judicial Appointments in India - ACQ IAS
Sep 28, 2025 · The Collegium system refers to India's judicial process for appointing and transferring judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.<|separator|>
[80]
[PDF] an examination of the executive tools used to influence judicial ...
This thesis is an examination of the executive tools used to influence judicial appointments in the context of the Indian Emergency.
[81]
[PDF] The Collegium Vs The Njac: Navigating Judicial Independence ...
In the Second Judges' Case, the Court introduced a new process for appointing judges. In the case of Supreme Court appointments, the Chief Justice of India was ...
[82]
Judges must be free, collegium shields from executive interference ...
Jun 4, 2025 · Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai asserted that judges should be appointed without any interference from the government, defending the Collegium system.
[83]
From Executive Appointment to the Collegium System: The Impact ...
Jul 10, 2019 · We find that both the pre-collegium and the collegium system maintain the geographical and religious diversity of India in the candidates that are appointed.Missing: dominated empirical
[84]
The Judicial Appointment System In India And USA
Apr 14, 2025 · In India, the collegium system plays an important role, where the senior judges of the Supreme Court decide on the appointment of judges, ...
[85]
Conceptualising Judicial Independence and Accountability from a ...
Apr 4, 2023 · The article argues that judicial independence and accountability have three essential dimensions: individual, internal and institutional.
[86]
The Constitution (121st Amendment) Bill, 2014 - PRS India
The Bill amends Article 124 (2) of the Constitution to provide for a Commission, to be known as the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). The NJAC ...
[87]
National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) - Drishti Judiciary
Mar 29, 2024 · The 99 th Amendment Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 which established the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) and the NJAC Act, was passed by ...
[88]
[PDF] the constitution (ninety-ninth amendment) act, 2014 - PRS India
(2) No act or proceedings of the National Judicial Appointments Commission shall be questioned or be invalidated merely on the ground of the existence of any ...
[89]
National Judicial Appointments Commission Act Notified
Apr 13, 2015 · The Constitution (Ninety Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 provides for the composition and the functions of the proposed NJAC. The Acts provide ...
[90]
The National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2014 - PRS India
The Bill has been introduced in conjunction with the Constitutional (121st Amendment) Bill, 2014, which establishes the National Judicial Appointments ...
[91]
National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) - INSIGHTS IAS
Mar 27, 2025 · ... Act, 2014 and NJAC Act, 2014. It sought to replace the collegium ... Composition of NJAC: Chief Justice of India (Chairperson); Two ...
[92]
What's new in the Supreme Court's latest transparency initiative?
May 9, 2025 · One of the sticky points around the revised MoP is whether the reiteration of a recommendation by the Collegium is binding on the government.
[93]
Judiciary vs. Executive: Turf war intensifies over judge appointments
Dec 8, 2023 · Supreme Court's Collegium may have final say in battle for appointment of Judges, despite Union Govt's attempts to manipulate system.
[94]
Wrong to say collegium lacks transparency: CJI DY Chandrachud
Jan 2, 2024 · However, in October 2015, the Supreme Court had struck down the NJAC Act holding it unconstitutional. Collegium system is the best system for ...
[95]
[PDF] Judicial Independence in India: Tipping the Scale January 2025
Feb 11, 2025 · ... Justice of the. Supreme Court. While article 124 of the Constitution provides that appointments are to be made by the. President of India, in ...
[96]
Judicial Appointments and Collegium System - Levelup IAS
Nov 26, 2023 · Third Judges Case (Presidential reference), 1998, the court further clarified the collegium system ... Memorandum of Procedure to cede some space ...
[97]
REFORMING THE PROCESS OF JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS
Sep 2, 2024 · Reforming India's judicial appointment process is crucial to addressing the backlog of cases and maintaining judicial independence.
[98]
Collegium System in India - KSG India
It is composed of the Chief Justice of India and the four most senior judges of the Supreme Court. Holds authority over the selection and transfer of judges ...<|separator|>
[99]
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-collegium-and-changes-it-may-still-be-early-days/article69069369.ece
[100]
COLLEGIUM SYSTEM UNDER SCRUTINY: RECENT REFORMS ...
Mar 31, 2025 · REFORMS IN COLLEGIUM SYSTEM A new mechanism for selecting judges at the Supreme Court and High Court levels was proposed by the 99th Amendment ...
[101]
Reforming India's Justice Delivery System - Drishti IAS
Aug 11, 2025 · Improve efficiency by reforming collegium transparency, increasing retirement age, expanding judge strength, and creating specialized courts.
[102]
Chief Justice & Judges - Supreme Court of India
Appointed as The Chief Justice of India on 14th May 2025. In the last six years, was a part of around 700 Benches dealing with matters pertaining to variety of ...Justice Surya Kant · Justice Atul Sharachchandra... · Justice B.V. Nagarathna
[103]
Two new judges take oath at the Supreme Court (July 2024)
The Ministry of Law and Justice notified the appointments of Justices Kotiswar Singh and R. Mahadevan on 16 July 2024. The Supreme Court collegium had ...
[104]
Supreme Court gets three new judges, reaches full strength of 34
May 30, 2025 · The Supreme Court got three new judges in Justices NV Anjaria, Vijay Bishnoi and AS Chandurkar, who were sworn in by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai in a short ...
[105]
Supreme Court returns to full strength with two new judges - The Hindu
Aug 29, 2025 · Gavai administered the swearing-in of Justices Alok Aradhe and Vipul M. Pancholi as Supreme Court judges on Friday (August 29, 2025). With their ...
[106]
Collegium Resolutions - Supreme Court of India
Collegium Resolutions ; Resolution dated 13 August 2024 reg. appointment of an Advocate as Judge in the High Court of Gujarat. Accessible Version : View (34 KB).
[107]
SC Collegium approves appointment of Judges to 6 High Courts
Jul 29, 2025 · Supreme Court Collegium recommends 19 names for appointments in 6 High Courts. The Collegium led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai held a ...
[108]
SC Collegium recommends appointing 9 Judges in 4 HCs
Sep 16, 2025 · The Collegium recommended the appointment of 2 Advocates as Judges of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh: Jiya Lal Bhardwaj. Romesh Verma.
[109]
Collegium vs Executive: CJI Gavai Warns Centre Against Selective ...
Jun 19, 2025 · Collegium vs Executive: CJI Gavai Warns Centre Against Selective Collegium Approvals, Seeks End to Segregated Judicial Appointments.<|separator|>
[110]
SC agrees to hear pleas over Centre's delay in appointment of judges
Jul 24, 2025 · Plea alleges that Centre delayed clearing names reiterated by the collegium—some since 2019—causing loss of seniority and interest among ...
[111]
The Collegium Conundrum - Drishti IAS
Jan 7, 2025 · About: The Collegium system refers to the mechanism for the appointment and transfer of judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts of India.
[112]
Collegium's 13 Resolutions Recommending SC Judges
Sep 25, 2021 · Collegium has released thirteen resolutions regarding Supreme Court judges' appointments since October 2017.
[113]
CJI Gavai assures 'complete transparency' in collegium system
Jul 4, 2025 · CJI B R Gavai pledged to enhance transparency in the judges' appointment system, ensuring merit and societal representation.
[114]
Justice Oka Calls For Greater Transparency In Collegium Decisions
Aug 28, 2025 · Justice Oka supported the idea that dissent must be disclosed but he also stressed the need to maintain the privacy of candidates. He explained ...Missing: association | Show results with:association
[115]
Judges appointment: SC Bar Association urges CJI, law minister to ...
Sep 24, 2025 · Judges appointment: SC Bar Association urges CJI, law minister to finalise MoP, calls for transparent system ... He said while the collegium ...
[116]
Lawyers' body demands 'corrections' to collegium mechanism
Sep 24, 2025 · Lawyers' body demands 'corrections' to collegium mechanism. They flag the urgent need to usher in a “transparent and equitable framework” for ...Missing: 2023-2025 | Show results with:2023-2025
[117]
SCBA Urges CJI and Law Minister to Implement Transparent, Merit ...
SCBA urges CJI and Law Minister to finalize MoP, citing flaws in collegium, lack of transparency, and poor gender diversity in judicial appointments.
[118]
SCBA urges reforms in collegium, seeks merit-based judge ...
Sep 24, 2025 · Judicial Appointments: The SCBA urged reforms in the collegium system, citing flaws that ignore Supreme Court Bar talent and under-represent ...Missing: 2023-2025 | Show results with:2023-2025
[119]
SCBA Presses for Transparent, Merit-Based Framework in Judicial ...
Sep 24, 2025 · While acknowledging that the Collegium system was designed to safeguard judicial independence, the letter says it has created “significant ...
[120]
[PDF] GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE ...
Jul 21, 2025 · As of July 21, 2025, there are 33 of 34 judges in the Supreme Court, 751 of 1122 in High Courts, with 371 High Court vacancies. 175 High Court ...
[121]
Across India, only two high courts fully staffed; Allahabad tops with ...
Oct 3, 2025 · Across India, only two high courts fully staffed; Allahabad tops with 76 vacancies. While the Supreme Court operates at full strength of 34 ...<|separator|>
[122]
The persistent failure of High Court collegiums to send timely ...
Jul 25, 2025 · The persistent failure of High Court collegiums to send timely recommendations undermines the very edifice of judicial independence. Examine the ...
[123]
August 2025: Pendency crosses the 88000 mark
The Court recorded a pendency of 88,047 cases—a net increase of 932 cases as compared to July 2025, when pendency stood at 87,115 cases. Pendency from January ...
[124]
Pendency in Supreme Court Reaches All-Time High - NEXT IAS
Sep 15, 2025 · From January to August 2025, the Supreme Court saw 52,630 cases filed, with 46,309 disposed of, marking an annual disposal rate of nearly 88%.
[125]
Judicial Corruption And Case Backlog: An Exception Or An Endemic?
Apr 4, 2025 · The average increase in the disposal of cases is about 3 to 5 percent. The average vacancies in judicial appointments is over 20 percent.<|separator|>
[126]
Supreme Court urged to fill up nearly 5000 vacancies in district courts
Sep 24, 2025 · Petitions to the top court call for an 'integrated' approach to filling up the over 5,000 vacancies in district courts.
[127]
Judicial Vacancies in the District Judiciary - Supreme Court Observer
23% of these judicial posts are vacant, i.e. 5133 judicial posts; Recruitment processes are underway for 4180 posts; For 1324 vacant posts, there is no ...
[128]
The Collegium System in India: Impacts and the Case for an Indian ...
Apr 25, 2025 · With over 2.78 crore pending cases and significant judicial vacancies, the system's inefficiencies have spurred calls for an Indian Judicial ...