BeauBasaldua8 at 20:05, 29 April 2026

2026-04-29T20:05:09Z

New page

{{Short description|Rulings on judicial independence in India}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=October 2024}}
{{Use Indian English|date=November 2016}}The '''collegium system''' is a collegium where incumbent judges of the [[Supreme Court of India]] appoint judges to the [[Judiciary of India]]. It originated from three Supreme Court judgments (rendered in 1981, 1993, and 1998), collectively known as the '''Three Judges Cases'''.<ref name="judge1">{{cite web |date=2015-11-09 |title=Madras High Court judge alleges caste bias in collegium system |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/madras-high-court-judge-alleges-caste-bias-in-collegium-system/ |accessdate=15 January 2016 |website=The Indian Express}}</ref> The system is alleged for being [[Nepotism|nepotistic]] and has faced widespread condemnation.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2015-06-19 |title=50% HC judges related to senior judicial members: Report |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/50-hc-judges-related-to-senior-judicial-members-report/story-S8RP2Ir9cEuIN4NewFnvML.html |access-date=2022-11-09 |website=Hindustan Times |language=en}}</ref>

==History==

===Evolution of the concept===

The three Judges Cases are:
# ''S. P. Gupta v. Union of India'' – 1981<ref name="First Judges Case 1981">{{cite web|last=Bhagwati|first=P.|title=S. P. Gupta v. President of India|url=http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1294854/|work=indiankanoon.org|publisher=Indian Kanoon|accessdate=15 January 2013}}</ref> (also known as the Judges' Transfer case)
# ''Supreme Court Advocates-on Record Association vs Union of India'' – 1993<ref name="Second Judges Case 1993">{{cite web|last=Verma (for the majority)|first=J S|title=Supreme Court Advocates-on-RecorIndia|url=http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/753224/|work=indiankanoon.org|publisher=Indian Kanoon|accessdate=15 January 2013}}</ref>
# ''In re'' Special Reference 1 of 1998<ref name="Third Judges Case 1998">{{cite web|last=Barucha|first=S. P.|title=In re Special Reference 1 of 1998|url=http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/543658/|work=indiankanoon.org|publisher=Indian Kanoon|accessdate=15 January 2013}}</ref>

Over the course of the three cases, the court evolved the principle of judicial independence to mean that no other branch of the state, including the legislature and the executive, would have any say in the appointment of judges. The court then created the collegium system, which has been in use since the judgment in the second Judges Case was issued in 1993.<ref name="Second Judges Case 1993" /> The third Judges Case is not a case but an opinion delivered by the Supreme Court responding to a [[question of law]] regarding the collegium system, raised by then President of India [[K. R. Narayanan]], in July 1998 under his constitutional powers.<ref name="Third Judges Case 1998" /> There is no explicit mention of the collegium either in the original [[Constitution of India]] or in any successive amendments.

In January 2013, the court dismissed as without [[locus standi]], a public interest litigation filed by NGO Suraz India Trust that sought to challenge the collegium system of appointment,<ref name="Apex court junks PIL to revisit collegium system">{{cite news|last=Express News Service|title=Apex court junks PIL to revisit collegium system|url=http://www.indianexpress.com/news/apex-court-junks-pil-to-revisit-collegium-system/1056092/0|accessdate=15 January 2013|newspaper=The Indian Express}}</ref> while in July, then [[Chief Justice of India|Chief Justice]] [[P. Sathasivam]] spoke against any attempts to change the collegium system.<ref name="Sathasivam">{{cite news |title= No need to change collegium system : Justice Sathasivam|url=http://www.niticentral.com/2013/07/03/no-need-to-change-collegium-system-justice-sathasivam-98687.html |newspaper= NiTi Central|date=3 July 2013 |accessdate=16 July 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=NJAC Act unconstitutional, collegium system to continue: Apex Court |url=https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/njac-act-unconstitutional-collegium-system-to-continue-apex-court/article7769481.ece |accessdate=26 October 2018 |agency=Press Trust of India |work=Business Line|location=Chennai |date=16 October 2015}}</ref>

==== Judicial interpretation of the word "recommendation" ====
In the third Judges Case, the Supreme Court has elaborately dealt with the modality of rendering recommendation by a constitutional entity such as the Supreme Court, the President of India, etc. It is not at the discretion of the person consulted to render the recommendation but internal consultations with the peers shall be made in writing, and the recommendation shall be made in accordance with the internal consultations.<ref name="Third Judges Case 1998" /> Here, internal consultations refer to panels of existing Supreme Court judges appointed by existing judges.

===2014 failed National Judicial Appointments Commission proposal===
On 13 and 14 August 2014, the [[Lok Sabha]] and the [[Rajya Sabha]] respectively passed the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Bill, 2014 and the Constitution (121st Amendment) Bill, 2014, which amends articles 124(2) and 217(1) of the Constitution of India by establishing the [[National Judicial Appointments Commission]], on whose recommendation the President would appoint judges to the higher judiciary<ref name="judicial appointment commission">{{cite news |date=5 October 2013 |title=Elders Clear bill to set up Judicial Appointment Commission |url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/elders-clear-bill-to-set-up-judicial-appointments-commission/article5096598.ece |accessdate=12 October 2013 |newspaper=The Hindu}}</ref> in order to scrap the collegium system. President [[Pranab Mukherjee]] gave his assent on 31 December 2014, after which the bills became National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 and the [[Ninety-ninth Amendment of the Constitution of India|Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, 2014]] respectively.

However, on 16 October 2015, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Justices [[Jagdish Singh Khehar|J. S. Khehar]], [[Madan Lokur]], [[Kurian Joseph]], [[Adarsh Kumar Goel]] and [[Jasti Chelameswar]], struck down the 99th constitutional amendment and the NJAC Act by a majority opinion of 4:1 in ''Supreme Court Advocate on Record Association v. Union of India'', with Justice Chelameswar dissenting, restoring the previous collegium system.<ref>{{Cite web|url = http://onelawstreet.com/2015/10/sc-declares-njac-unconstitutional-chelameswar-j-dissents-read-judgment/|title = SC declares NJAC unconstitutional; Chelameswar J dissents [Read Judgment]|date = 16 October 2015|accessdate = 3 November 2011|website = 1, Law Street}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title= Supreme Court ... vs Union Of India on 16 October, 2015 | url= https://indiankanoon.org/doc/66970168/|website=Indian Kanoon|access-date=26 June 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title= SC Bench strikes down NJAC Act as 'unconstitutional and void' | url= http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-verdict-on-njac-and-collegium-system/article7769266.ece?homepage=true | newspaper= The Hindu | date= 17 October 2015 | accessdate= 17 October 2015}}</ref> The Bench declared that the Act is unconstitutional since it interfered with the autonomy of the judiciary by the executive which amounts to tampering with the [[Basic structure doctrine|basic structure of the constitution]] where Parliament is not empowered to change so. However, the Bench also acknowledged that the collegium system is lacking transparency and credibility which would be rectified or improved by the Judiciary.

==Current members of the Collegium==

===High Court Elevation===

1. [[Surya Kant (judge)|Surya Kant]], incumbent [[Chief Justice of India]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-11-25 |title=Justice Surya Kant takes oath as 53rd Chief Justice of India: Village celebrates journey of its ‘Surya’ |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/justice-surya-kant-takes-oath-as-53rd-chief-justice-of-india-village-celebrates-journey-of-its-surya-10384221/ |access-date=2025-11-25 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite news |last=PTI |date=2025-11-24 |title=CJI Surya Kant to head Supreme Court Collegium after predecessor Justice Gavai demits office |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/cji-surya-kant-to-head-supreme-court-collegium-after-predecessor-justice-gavai-demits-office/article70316835.ece |access-date=2025-11-25 |work=The Hindu |language=en-IN |issn=0971-751X}}</ref>

2. [[Vikram Nath]], Judge of the Supreme Court.<ref name=":0" />

3. [[Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari|J. K. Maheshwari]], Judge of the Supreme Court.<ref name=":0" />

===Supreme Court Elevation and Transfers===

4. [[B. V. Nagarathna]], Judge of the Supreme Court.<ref name=":0" />

5. [[M. M. Sundresh]], Judge of the Supreme Court.<ref name=":0" />

==Criticism==
The collegium system is notorious for the [[nepotism|nepotistic]] phenomenon called the [[Judiciary of India#Nepotism|uncle judge syndrome]]. In 2017, the Supreme Court of India had recognised the rot of the collegium, but as of 2025 little has been done to fix it.<ref>[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-plus/law/supreme-court-wants-to-get-rid-of-uncle-judges-syndrome-can-it/articleshow/117192065.cms Supreme Court wants to get rid of ‘uncle judges’ syndrome. Can it?], Times of India, 13 Jan 2025.</ref> In 2015, advocate Mathews J Nedumpara claims that around 50% of the High Court judges and 33% of the Supreme Court judges are family members of those in higher echelons of judiciary, with six Supreme Court judges were sons of former judges and over 88 High Court judges were either born to a family of lawyers, judges, or worked under some legal luminaries.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2015-06-19 |title=50% HC judges related to senior judicial members: Report |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/50-hc-judges-related-to-senior-judicial-members-report/story-S8RP2Ir9cEuIN4NewFnvML.html |access-date=2022-11-09 |website=Hindustan Times |language=en}}</ref> while in 2022, former Minister of State for Human Resource Development [[Upendra Kushwaha]] noted that judges of Supreme Court so far have come only from 250-300 families, and there is negligible representation of women and Scheduled Castes in the higher judiciary.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2017-12-12 |title=Only 250-300 families have sent judges to SC: Upendra Kushwaha |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/only-250-300-families-have-sent-judges-to-sc-upendra-kushwaha-4978701/ |access-date=2022-11-09 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref> Consequently, the collegium system has often been alleged to have caste bias due to the lack of representation of marginalised communities such as the [[Other Backward Class]], [[Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes]].

[[Jasti Chelameswar]], a Supreme Court judge, who was a part of the [[National Judicial Appointments Commission|NJAC]] verdict of 2015, gave a [[dissenting opinion]], stating that the NJAC could have acted “as a check on unwholesome trade-offs within the collegium and incestuous accommodations between Judicial and Executive branches.”<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://caravanmagazine.in/law/what-judiciary-done-itself|title=What the Indian judiciary has done to itself|last=Dev|first=Atul|website=The Caravan|language=en|access-date=2019-07-20}}</ref> He had criticized the existing collegium system of appointing judges, which he said had become "a euphemism for nepotism", where "mediocrity or even less" is promoted and a "constitutional disorder" does not look distant.<ref>{{Cite web|title = The judge who dissented: 'No accountability, mediocrity or even less promoted, reform overdue'|url = http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/the-judge-who-dissented-no-accountability-mediocrity-or-even-less-promoted-reform-overdue/|website = The Indian Express|date = 2015-10-17|accessdate = 2015-11-03}}</ref>

The collegium system has failed to address filling vacant positions at the High Court and Supreme Court levels.<ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/with-judicial-vacancies-galore-questions-over-functioning-of-collegium-system-297165/|title= With judicial vacancies galore, questions over functioning of Collegium system}}</ref><ref name="rediff1">{{Cite web |last=Gera |first=Ishaan |title=Only 14.4 Judges Per Million Population |url=https://www.rediff.com/news/special/only-14-4-judges-per-million-population/20220802.htm |access-date=2022-11-06 |website=Rediff |language=en}}</ref> In 2022, the sanctioned number of judges in India was 21.03 judges per million population, while the actual number of judges was noted at 14.4 per million population, up from 13.2 in 2016, and several experts have stated that the minimum number of judges should be as per the global standard of 50 per million population.<ref>{{Cite news |title=India has about 21 judges per million people |work=The Economic Times |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/india-has-about-21-judges-per-million-people/articleshow/89481479.cms |access-date=2022-11-06}}</ref> The vacant positions for both judges and non-judicial staff have led to a rise in pendency of cases; as of May 2022, a total of 4.7 [[crore]] (47 million) cases are pending in courts nationwide.<ref name="clogged-state-of-judiciary">{{cite news |last=Sumeda |title=Explained The clogged state of the Indian judiciary |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/indian-judiciary-pendency-data-courts-statistics-explain-judges-ramana-chief-justiceundertrials/article65378182.ece |access-date=2022-08-26 |work=The Hindu |date=2022-05-10}}</ref>

Critics have argued that the collegium system has not addressed the competency or professional capabilities of judges at district level when permanently elevating or promoting them to High Court or Supreme Court, especially if they are temporarily elevated. This was largely seen with [[Pushpa Virendra Ganediwala]], an additional judge with the [[Bombay High Court]], who faced widespread condemnation by media and political figures for a series of controversial judgements in several cases of sexual assault.<ref>{{Cite news |title=SC collegium clears elevation of four judges to Bombay HC|url=https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/other/sc-collegium-clears-elevation-of-four-judges-to-bombay-hc/articleshow/65816157.cms|access-date=2020-10-19|newspaper=Mumbai Mirror|language=en}}</ref> As a result of this, Ganediwala was denied permanent elevation by the Supreme Court collegium, and she eventually tendered her resignation in February 2022.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|date=2022-02-11|title=Denied elevation, judge who gave 'no skin-to-skin contact' order resigns|url=https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/denied-elevation-judge-who-gave-no-skin-to-skin-contact-order-resigns-7766888/|access-date=2022-02-11|website=The Indian Express|language=en}}</ref>

==See also==

* [[Judiciary of India#Judicial corruption|Corruption in Indian judiciary]]
* [[Nepotism]]
* [[National Judicial Appointments Commission]]
* [[Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala]]

==References==

{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Indian constitutional case law]]
[[Category:Supreme Court of India cases]]

Collegium system - Revision history

BeauBasaldua8 at 20:05, 29 April 2026