The independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of constitutional democracies, yet the process by which judges are appointed must also reflect transparency, accountability, and inclusiveness. In India, the Collegium system evolved through judicial interpretation has faced persistent criticism for its opaque functioning and lack of institutional checks. This research paper explores the evolution, critique, and constitutional basis of the Collegium system, and contrasts it with global practices in judicial appointments. It further analyses the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) debate, the Supreme Court’s 2015 verdict, and recent efforts toward reform. Drawing lessons from comparative jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and South Africa, the study argues for a balanced model that safeguards judicial independence while ensuring democratic legitimacy. The paper concludes by recommending codified criteria, broader representation, and public reasoning as necessary steps toward meaningful reform.
Dutt et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: