Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has publicly advocated for a fundamental shift in how the Indian judiciary handles the appointment and elevation of judges, calling for increased transparency within the collegium system. Justice Bhuyan asserted that the current practice of withholding the rationale behind selection decisions is a disservice to qualified candidates and undermines the professional standing of those passed over for promotion.
The remarks were made during the release of a report on the Judicial Transparency Index, a project aimed at quantifying and improving the openness of judicial processes. Justice Bhuyan emphasized that the absence of clear, disclosed criteria for selection creates an environment where genuinely outstanding judges may be overlooked without any understanding of why they were deemed unsuitable or how other candidates were prioritized.
What Happened
Speaking at the event, Justice Bhuyan highlighted a critical gap in the current administrative framework of the higher judiciary: the lack of reasoned orders regarding appointments. Under the existing system, the collegium—the body responsible for recommending names for appointment to the High Courts and the Supreme Court—operates largely in private. When a candidate is passed over for elevation, or when a specific name is prioritized over others, the reasons for such decisions are not shared with the candidates or the public.
Justice Bhuyan argued that this opacity does not merely affect the administrative efficiency of the courts but has a direct human and professional cost. He noted that for judges who have served with distinction, the lack of a transparent explanation for their non-elevation can be perceived as a professional setback without a clear path for improvement or a justified basis for the decision.
Why It Matters
The call for transparency from a sitting member of the Supreme Court is significant because it represents an internal critique of one of the most guarded institutions in the Indian state. The collegium system is frequently criticized by external actors—including the executive branch and legal activists—for being an “opaque” or “closed-door” mechanism. However, when a member of the judiciary identifies these gaps, it suggests that the perceived lack of transparency is not merely a political talking point but a systemic issue recognized by those operating within the system.
By framing the issue as a “disservice” to qualified candidates, Justice Bhuyan has pivoted the debate. Rather than focusing on the power struggle between the judiciary and the government, the argument is now centered on meritocracy and professional fairness. If the criteria for elevation remain secret, the judiciary risks the perception that appointments are based on subjective preferences or internal networks rather than objective performance metrics.
Analysis: The Shift Toward Quantifiable Accountability
The endorsement of the Judicial Transparency Index marks a potential shift toward the quantification of judicial accountability. For decades, the judiciary has relied on the “integrity” and “seniority” of judges as the primary metrics for elevation, often treating these qualities as intuitive rather than demonstrable. The introduction of a transparency index suggests a move toward a more data-driven approach to judicial administration.
If the judiciary begins to adopt formalized standards for appointments, it could effectively neutralize long-standing criticisms from the executive branch. The government has historically sought a greater role in appointments—most notably through the proposed National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), which was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015—arguing that the collegium system lacks oversight. By implementing internal transparency and providing reasoned decisions, the judiciary could maintain its independence while satisfying the demand for accountability, thereby removing the primary justification for executive interference.
Background and Context
The collegium system is a unique feature of the Indian judiciary, evolved through a series of Supreme Court judgments known as the “Judges Cases.” It consists of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the four most senior judges of the Supreme Court. This body decides who will be appointed as judges to the Supreme Court and the various High Courts, as well as the transfer of judges between High Courts.
The system was designed to protect judicial independence by ensuring that the executive branch does not have the final say in who becomes a judge, thereby preventing political patronage. However, this independence has come at the cost of transparency. Unlike many other democratic jurisdictions where judicial appointments involve public hearings, parliamentary scrutiny, or published criteria, the Indian collegium’s deliberations remain confidential.
This secrecy has led to recurring tensions between the Ministry of Law and Justice and the Supreme Court. The executive has occasionally delayed the clearance of names recommended by the collegium or returned files seeking reconsideration, often citing a lack of clarity regarding the merits of the candidates.
What to Watch Next
The impact of Justice Bhuyan’s remarks will depend on whether the collegium formally adopts a policy of providing reasoned orders for its recommendations. Observers should monitor several key developments:
First, whether the Supreme Court administration integrates the findings of the Judicial Transparency Index into its official appointment protocols. A move toward publishing the general criteria used for elevation—even if individual deliberations remain private—would be a significant step forward.
Second, the reaction of the Chief Justice of India and the senior-most members of the collegium. As the system is rooted in judicial precedent rather than statutory law, any change in how it operates would likely require a consensus among the senior judiciary or a new landmark ruling.
Third, the response from the executive branch. If the judiciary increases its transparency, the government may find it more difficult to argue for a return to a system like the NJAC, which would grant the state more direct influence over appointments.
Conclusion
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s call for transparency addresses a long-standing vulnerability in the Indian judicial appointment process. By advocating for the disclosure of reasons behind elevations and appointments, he has highlighted the necessity of aligning judicial independence with institutional accountability. The push for a more transparent system is not merely an administrative adjustment; it is an effort to ensure that the higher judiciary is seen as a meritocracy where excellence is recognized and rewarded through a clear, objective, and fair process.
Sources:
Hindustan Times – India News: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/supreme-court-justice-ujjal-bhuyan-backs-more-transparency-in-collegium-operation-101785638404268.html
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: Hindustan Times – India News — source
