SC Judge Defends Collegium System, Flags Centre’s Selective Approvals

Context

• • Supreme Court Justice Dipankar Datta, in his opinion in the case concerning the 2023 law on appointment of the CEC and Election Commissioners, defended the judicial collegium system against the argument that it amounts to “judges appointing judges.”
  • He also raised concerns over the selective implementation of Collegium recommendations by the executive.

1. What did Justice Datta say?

• • The phrase “judges appoint judges” overlooks the executive’s role in judicial appointments, including consultation, verification and final approval.
  • Every judicial appointment ultimately carries the President’s approval.
  • Therefore, the appointment process involves both judicial and executive institutions.

2. Concern over “Piecemeal Approvals”

• • Justice Datta criticised the practice of approving some Collegium recommendations while withholding others.
  • Such selective implementation, he observed, can undermine the sanctity of Collegium resolutions and create uncertainty in judicial appointments.
  • He also noted that repeated withholding of names could strain the relationship between the judiciary and executive.

3. Constitutional Significance

Judicial Independence

• • The Constitution requires an independent judiciary as an essential component of separation of powers.

Collegium System

• • Evolved through the Second and Third Judges Cases, giving primacy to the judiciary in judicial appointments.
  • The executive nevertheless remains involved in the appointment process.

NJAC Debate

• • The 99th Constitutional Amendment and NJAC Act, 2014 sought a different appointment mechanism but were struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015.

4. Broader Issue

The controversy reflects a larger constitutional balance:

Judicial independence ↔ Executive accountability ↔ Transparency in appointments

The debate therefore concerns not merely who appoints judges, but how to ensure independence, accountability, transparency and institutional checks simultaneously.

Way Forward

• • Establish clearer timelines for processing Collegium recommendations.
  • Provide reasoned responses where recommendations are returned or withheld.
  • Improve transparency while protecting legitimate confidentiality.
  • Strengthen institutional dialogue between judiciary and executive.

Conclusion

The controversy highlights the need for an appointment system that protects judicial independence without eliminating institutional accountability. The larger constitutional objective is to ensure that neither judicial nor executive power becomes unchecked.