Is the Collegium System Beyond Question?

The Collegium system—where judges appoint judges—is often presented as sacrosanct. But should it be immune to public scrutiny and debate? After all, in a democracy, no institution should be above accountability, especially one tasked with upholding justice.

• In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)—a constitutional attempt to reform judicial appointments—on the grounds that it violated the “basic structure doctrine” (judicial independence).
  
  

• But critics ask: Does independence mean insulation from accountability?

Nepotism or Merit?

There is growing criticism that the judiciary is becoming hereditary:

• A study by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy (2016) found that nearly 50% of Supreme Court judges had close relatives in the legal profession.
  
  

• Names of children or relatives of former judges, politicians, or senior advocates frequently come up for elevation.

Question: Does this trend represent India’s diversity or meritocracy—or just elite continuity?

What Happens When Corruption Surfaces?

There have been instances of large sums of money found in premises linked to judges:

• In March 2025, a fire at Delhi HC Judge Yashwant Varma’s official residence led to the discovery of nearly ₹15 crore in unaccounted cash, The Supreme Court ordered an in‑house inquiry, withdrew his judicial duties, and the Collegium recommended transferring him to the Allahabad High Court pending investigation.
  
  

• Yet, no public apology, no impeachment, and barely any national outrage.

Why the silence when it’s about the judiciary itself?

Inconsistent Judicial Sensitivity?

There’s also a feeling that judicial response differs based on community, caste, or political climate:

• In cases involving one special communities or political opposition, the court may ask to “approach lower judiciary.”
  
  

• But when certain narratives or communities are involved, hearings are expedited, late-night benches are formed, and Suo Moto notices are taken.

Should justice depend on who you are—or what issue you represent?

When One Pillar Tries to Become ‘Sarve-Sarva’

In India’s constitutional setup, the legislature, executive, and judiciary are meant to act as checks and balances.

But when the judiciary becomes the final interpreter of law, the decider of appointments, and shielded from oversight, it raises a basic democratic concern:

Is one pillar trying to become the master of all?

This isn't an attack on the judiciary, but a call for balance.

What Can Be Done?

1. Transparent Collegium Process – Make selection criteria public.
   
   

2. Diverse Bench Representation – Ensure judges come from all castes, regions, and economic backgrounds.
   
   

3. Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill – Revive this idea to create a mechanism for complaint handling.
   
   

4. Parliamentary Oversight (without interference) – Encourage dialogue between institutions.