Collegium System in India: Evolution, Functioning, and Controversies
The Collegium System is vital for UPSC GS Paper 2 (Polity, Constitution, Governance) and relevant for Essay and Interview discussions on judicial administration and checks and balances. Key areas include the Three Judges Cases, NJAC verdict, and the balance between independence and accountability.
Introduction
The Collegium System is India’s unique mechanism for the appointment and transfer of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts, devised through judicial interpretation rather than explicit constitutional enactment. Its primary aim is to uphold judicial independence, preventing undue executive influence over appointments. Anchored in the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, the Collegium system remains one of the most significant — and contested — elements of India’s constitutional democracy. Despite its pivotal role in preserving judicial autonomy, questions about transparency, accountability, and procedural clarity persist.
Constitutional Background
The Constitution envisions a collaborative process for judicial appointments under Articles 124, 217, and 222.
- Article 124(2): Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President after consultation with judges of the Supreme and High Courts as deemed necessary, and mandatorily with the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
- Article 217(1): High Court judges are appointed by the President in consultation with the CJI, the Governor of the State, and the Chief Justice of that High Court.
- Article 222: Lays down procedures for the transfer of High Court judges after consultation with the CJI.
Originally, the Constitution’s framers sought a balance — the executive would make the appointment, but in consultation with the judiciary. However, over time, judicial pronouncements leaned increasingly towards securing judicial primacy.
Evolution of the Collegium System
First Judges Case (1981) – S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India
The First Judges Case interpreted “consultation” in Articles 124(2) and 217(1) to not mean concurrence, granting the executive primacy in judicial appointments. It held that the President was not bound by the CJI’s advice, emphasizing the government’s dominant role.
Second Judges Case (1993) – Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India
This landmark judgment reversed the executive primacy, ruling that “consultation” actually means “concurrence.” It vested decisive authority in the judiciary, stating that the CJI’s recommendation, made after wide consultation with senior judges, is binding on the President. The Collegium System thus came into being to preserve judicial independence from political interference.
Third Judges Case (1998) – In re Presidential Reference
On a Presidential reference, the Supreme Court further expanded the Collegium to a five-member body: the CJI and four senior-most Supreme Court judges. It institutionalized collective decision-making and clarified the process of recommendations and re-consideration with the executive.
This trilogy of judgments effectively established the Collegium System as a judicial convention ensuring the judiciary’s supremacy in its own appointments.
Composition and Working
Supreme Court Collegium
- Headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
- Includes the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
High Court Collegium
- Led by the Chief Justice of the respective High Court.
- Includes two senior-most judges of that court.
Process of Functioning
- The High Court Collegium proposes names for appointment as High Court judges.
- The Supreme Court Collegium reviews and forwards approved recommendations to the Law Ministry.
- The executive can raise objections or seek clarification, but if the Collegium reiterates its recommendation, the appointment becomes binding on the government.
- For transfers, the CJI initiates proposals, consulting other judges and the transferee’s Chief Justices.
The system intends to protect judicial independence by adding layers of internal consultation, but the absence of statutory backing makes it opaque and reliant entirely on convention.
Criticisms and Concerns
Despite its noble aim, the Collegium has been criticized on several grounds:
Lack of Transparency:
- The process of selection and deliberation is secretive, with no publicly available rationale for decisions.
- Allegations persist that appointments depend on personal acquaintance rather than professional merit.
Absence of Accountability:
- Without an external check, the judiciary acts as both selector and appointee, leading to accusations of “judges appointing themselves.”
Perceived Nepotism:
- Critics argue the system fosters favoritism and undermines public trust, as seen in the rising debate over internal bias within the higher judiciary.
Executive Judiciocracy Conflict:
- The government contends that the system curtails democratic checks, while the judiciary fears executive intrusion may compromise independence.
Delay in Appointments:
- Disagreement between the Collegium and the government often causes vacancies and judicial delays in crucial positions.
While it preserves the judiciary’s autonomy, the Collegium’s closed-door mechanism continues to raise questions of legitimacy, accountability, and efficiency.
The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Case, 2015
The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act (2014) sought to replace the Collegium with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), comprising representatives from the judiciary, the executive, and civil society. The NJAC Act included:
- CJI + 2 senior-most judges of SC.
- Union Law Minister.
- Two eminent persons nominated by a committee of the PM, CJI, and Leader of Opposition.
Supreme Court Verdict
In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), the apex court struck down the NJAC as unconstitutional for violating the Basic Structure Doctrine, particularly the independence of the judiciary under Article 50.
The judgment restored the Collegium, asserting that judges’ independence is non-negotiable, though the court acknowledged the need for greater transparency and reforms in its functioning.
Recent Developments and Debates
- Judiciary-Executive Tensions:
The ongoing friction between the Supreme Court and the Law Ministry highlights concerns over delayed clearances and perceived executive interference in Collegium recommendations. - Need for Transparency:
In 2017, the SC began publishing Collegium resolutions online, detailing appointment rationales. However, these remain limited to general statements. - Public Reforms Discourse:
Judges and experts have suggested inclusion of a wider consultation base or a hybrid model combining independence with accountability.
Recent statements by leading academics and jurists emphasize balancing judicial primacy with democratic accountability. - Current Collegium:
In 2025, under CJI B.R. Gavai, the Collegium continues its pivotal role in shaping the judiciary, having recommended landmark appointments to ensure regional and gender diversity.
Way Forward & Conclusion
Judicial appointments in a democracy require both independence and accountability. To preserve the judiciary’s credibility while ensuring transparency:
- A clear procedural framework should be enacted through legislation.
- Collegium consultations must be recorded and reasoned.
- External oversight could be structured without political interference.
- Technology-based systems can enhance transparency and candidate tracking.
The Collegium’s legacy in guaranteeing judicial autonomy is undisputed, yet it must adapt to evolving democratic expectations. As India’s constitutional guardian, the judiciary’s legitimacy depends not just on independence, but on the faith of the people it serves.
In essence, the Collegium System symbolizes India’s commitment to an independent judiciary — a cornerstone of the rule of law — but its evolution from secrecy to transparency will determine how effectively it continues to serve the spirit of the Constitution.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1. What is the Collegium System in India?
The Collegium System is the judicial mechanism through which judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed or transferred. It evolved through judicial pronouncements, not through any constitutional amendment, ensuring judicial independence from executive interference.
Q2. Which Articles of the Indian Constitution deal with judicial appointments?
Articles 124, 217, and 222 govern the appointment and transfer of judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts. They empower the President to make appointments after “consultation” with the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
Q3. What were the Three Judges Cases that led to the Collegium System?
- First Judges Case (1981) – upheld executive primacy in appointments.
- Second Judges Case (1993) – established judicial primacy via the Collegium.
- Third Judges Case (1998) – expanded the Collegium to include the CJI and four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
Q4. How does the Collegium System function?
- The Supreme Court Collegium comprises the CJI and four senior-most judges.
- The High Court Collegium includes the Chief Justice and two senior-most judges.
Appointments and transfers are recommended by these bodies to the government, which may seek clarification, but once reiterated, the recommendation becomes binding.
Q5. What are the major criticisms of the Collegium System?
- Lack of transparency in selection.
- Absence of accountability or legislative oversight.
- Allegations of nepotism and favouritism.
- Judicial overreach in an area originally meant for the executive.
Q6. What is the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)?
The NJAC, established by the 99th Constitutional Amendment (2014), aimed to replace the Collegium by involving the executive and eminent persons in appointments. However, it was struck down as unconstitutional in 2015 because it violated the Basic Structure Doctrine, undermining judicial independence.
Q7. Are there any recent changes proposed to the Collegium System?
Yes, in 2025, the Supreme Court Collegium introduced interviews for High Court candidates and proposed excluding relatives of sitting judges to limit nepotism and promote diversity.
Q8. What reforms are needed in the Collegium System?
Reforms such as enhanced transparency, publication of reasons for selection/rejection, participation from independent members, and a more institutionalized Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) are necessary to improve efficiency and retain public confidence.
