The Collegium System in India represents a unique system or process for employing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts, a process not basically outlined in the Indian Constitution but developed by judicial interpretation. This system entrusts a group of senior judges with the authority to select future judges, marking a departure from executive-led appointments in other branches of government. The system relies on constitutional Articles, judicial precedent, and conventions that collectively govern judicial appointments and transfers. In this article, we will explore the constitutional Articles relevant to the Collegium System, the landmark cases that shaped this process, and its implications for accountability of the independent judiciary.
Background:
The Constitution of India does not contain a specific provision for the Collegium System, which instead emerged from a series of Supreme Court judgments collectively known as the “Three Judges Cases.” The Collegium System was established to ensure judicial independence by reducing executive control over appointments and transfers. Initially, the Constitution granted the President of India the power to appoint judges, with the role of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and other senior judges serving as “consultative” in nature. However, judicial interpretation gradually evolved this consultative role into a binding recommendation, forming the basis of the Collegium System.
Constitutional Articles Governing Judicial Appointments and Transfers:
Several constitutional Articles are central to understanding judicial appointments and the functioning of the Collegium System:
1. Article 124 – Appointment of Supreme Court Judges: Article 124(2) of the Constitution provides for the appointment of Supreme Court judges. It states that every judge of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, shall be appointed by the President of India after consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as considered necessary. While Article 124 assigns the power of appointment to the President, the Supreme Court’s interpretation over the years has given primacy to the judiciary’s recommendations through the Collegium System.
2. Article 217 – Appointment of High Court Judges: Article 217 tells about the appointment of the judges of the High Court. It has been mentioned in that the President after doing a consultation with the Chief Justice of India and also with the governor of the particular state appoints the Judge of the High Court, in the case of CJI he consults with the CJ of the High Courts. Similar to Article 124, the judicial interpretation of Article 217 has reinforced the need for effective consultation, which evolved into a de facto authority vested in the Collegium for appointing High Court judges.
3. Article 222 – Transfer of High Court Judges: Article 222 gives the President the authority to transfer a judge from one High Court to another, but only after consulting with the CJI. The Collegium System has gradually assumed the responsibility for transfers, emphasizing judicial consensus in decisions to transfer judges, thereby reducing the risk of politically influenced transfers.
4. Article 124A to 124C – Ninety-Ninth Amendment and National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC): Articles 124A to 124C were introduced through the 99th Constitutional Amendment in 2014 to establish the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) as a replacement for the Collegium System. These Articles sought to make judicial appointments and transfers a more transparent and inclusive process by involving the executive and two eminent persons in the NJAC. However, in the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down these Articles, declaring the NJAC unconstitutional as it threatened judicial independence. This decision reaffirmed the Collegium System as the standard for judicial appointments.
Landmark Judgments:
The evolution of the Collegium System owes much too judicial interpretation, specifically through the following landmark cases known as the “Three Judges Cases”:
1. First Judges Case (1981) – S.P. Gupta v. Union of India: In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the word “consultation” in Articles 124 and 217 did not imply “concurrence.” This basically means that the President will not be bound to follow the recommendation of the judiciary which means that the executive has the overall control over the judiciary. This judgment, however, was later overturned in the Second Judges Case, as concerns over executive interference in judicial independence grew.
2. Second Judges Case (1993) – Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India: The Second Judges Case marked a significant shift, with the Supreme Court ruling that the judiciary must have the primary say in judicial appointments to maintain independence. It was in this case that the Collegium System was first conceptualized. The court held that the CJI should make recommendations for appointments and transfers in consultation with the two senior-most judges, establishing a three-member Collegium for High Court appointments.
3. Third Judges Case (1998) – Re: Presidential Reference: In response to a presidential request for clarification on the Collegium’s composition, the Supreme Court expanded the Collegium to include the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the four senior-most judges for Supreme Court appointments. For High Court appointments, the Collegium would consist of the CJI, the two senior-most Supreme Court judges, the concerned High Court Chief Justice, and the two senior-most judges of that High Court. This ruling further formalized the Collegium System, highlighting the importance of collective consensus in judicial appointments.
4. NJAC Case (2015) – Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India: In this case, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC, declaring it unconstitutional for compromising judicial independence. This judgment reaffirmed the Collegium System and underscored the importance of judicial autonomy in appointments, marking a significant step in defending the judiciary from executive influence.
Structure and Process of this system:
The Collegium System, as established through judicial interpretations, operates on a consensus basis and involves multiple levels of consultation to ensure transparency and reduce bias:
· For appointments to the Supreme Court, the Collegium comprises the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most Supreme Court judges.
· For High Court appointments, this members includes the CJI and two senior-most Supreme Court judges, along with the Chief Justice of the relevant High Court and its two senior-most judges.
Recommendations from the Collegium are sent to the Ministry of Law and Justice for further processing. While the executive may return a recommendation once for reconsideration, if the Collegium reiterates it, the President is bound to accept it. This “one-time reconsideration” serves as a balance between the judiciary and executive in the appointment process.
Implications and Criticisms:
1. Independence of Judiciary: The Collegium System has proven effective in shielding the judiciary from executive control, preserving the independence of the judiciary which is basically required for the free and fair judgement. By ensuring that judges are selected by their peers, the system aims to prevent political influence in the judiciary.
2. Transparency and Accountability Issues: One of the most frequent criticisms of the Collegium System is its lack of transparency and accountability. Collegium decisions are often confidential, and there is limited public access to the reasons behind selections or rejections, which has led to calls for reform.
3. Risk of Nepotism and Favoritism: It has been said by the other departments that without the external overview, our collegium system could lead to favoritism or “judicial dynasties.” The lack of a structured selection process sometimes creates the perception that decisions are influenced by personal considerations rather than merit alone.
4. Executive’s Limited Role: By minimizing the role of the executive, the Collegium System can be seen as limiting democratic oversight. The exclusion of the executive from direct participation in appointments has raised concerns about checks and balances within the appointment process.
Conclusion:
The Collegium System, born out of judicial interpretation, is a distinctive model for judicial appointments in India. Concentrating appointment power within the judiciary has successfully safeguarded judicial independence, a fundamental aspect of the democratic structure. However, the system’s opaque procedures and limited external oversight have fueled ongoing debate on the need for reform. As India continues to evolve as a democracy, discussions around transparency, merit-based selection, and judicial accountability within the Collegium System basically to make the trust of the public in judicial decisions and work very strong.
Best Lawfirm in lucknow for Corporate Cases | Best Crimimal Lawyers Near me | Best Criminal Advocates Near me | Best Corporate Advocates Near Me | Best Criminal Lawyers in Lucknow High Court | Best Corporate Lawyers in Lucknow High Court | Best Lawfirm in Uttar Pradesh | Best Criminal Advocates in Uttar Pradesh | Best Adcocates in Lucknow High Court | Best Lawyers in Lucknow High Court | Best Lawfirm in Lucknow High Court | Best Legal Advisor in Lucknow | Best Legal Consultant in Lucknow | Best lawfirm for legal Consultancy services in lucknow
NEXT IAS, https://www.nextias.com/ca/editorial-analysis/02-01-2024/collegium-system-of-india#:~:text=–%20Article%20124%3A%20Supreme%20Court%20judges,the%20Governor%20of%20the%20state. (Last visited Oct. 20, 2024). https://saslawchambers.com
Drishtiias, https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/collegium-system-6 (last visited Oct. 20, 2024).
Prashant Gupta, Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association vs. Union of India (1993), ipleaders (Oct. 20, 2024, 9:30 P.M.), https://blog.ipleaders.in/supreme-court-advocates-on-record-association-vs-union-of-india/#:~:text=The%20requirement%20of%20recommendation%20of,Union%20of%20India%20(2015).
Indiankanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/112850760/ (last visited Oct. 20, 2024). https://saslawchambers.com/contact