What is the Collegium System?
The Collegium is a group of senior judges headed by the Chief Justice of India or the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court. It recommends the appointment, elevation and transfer of judges in the higher judiciary.
o The Constitution does not explicitly provide for the Collegium System; it emerged through judicial interpretation in the landmark Three Judges Cases.
Evolution of the Collegium System
Constitutional Position before the Judges Cases
o The Constitution originally envisaged a consultative process in which judges were appointed by the President after consulting the Chief Justice of India and other constitutional authorities.
o During the initial decades, the executive exercised greater influence in judicial appointments because the opinion of the Chief Justice of India was treated as consultative rather than binding.
First Judges Case, 1981
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India: The Supreme Court held that the word “consultation” in Article 124(2) and in Article 217 of the Constitution did not mean concurrence and that the opinion of the Chief Justice of India was not binding on the executive.
o The judgment gave primacy to the executive in the appointment and transfer of judges, although consultation with judicial authorities remained necessary.
Second Judges Case, 1993: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, The Supreme Court reversed the First Judges Case and held that the Chief Justice of India’s opinion would have primacy in judicial appointments.
o The Court clarified that the opinion of the Chief Justice must be formed collectively in consultation with the two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, thereby establishing the Collegium System.
Third Judges Case, 1998: The President sought the Supreme Court’s opinion regarding the meaning and scope of consultation in judicial appointments under Article 143.
o The Supreme Court expanded the Collegium for Supreme Court appointments to include the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most Supreme Court judges.
o The Court held that a recommendation should generally not be forwarded if two members of the Collegium express strong disagreement.
o For High Court appointments, the Chief Justice of India is required to consult the two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court who are familiar with the affairs of the concerned High Court.
National Judicial Appointments Commission, 2014
· The Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 sought to replace the Collegium System with the National Judicial Appointments Commission.
· The proposed Commission consisted of the Chief Justice of India, two senior-most Supreme Court judges, the Union Law Minister and two eminent persons.
Fourth Judges Case, 2015
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India
· The Supreme Court declared the Ninety-Ninth Constitutional Amendment and the NJAC Act unconstitutional by a majority of four to one.
· The Court held that excessive executive participation in judicial appointments could compromise judicial independence, which forms part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
· The Collegium System was consequently restored, although the Court acknowledged the need to improve its transparency and functioning.
Constitutional Basis for Appointment of Judges
The Constitution provides the formal framework for judicial appointments, while the Collegium System operates through judicial interpretation of these provisions.
· Article 124: Article 124 provides that every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President after consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as the President considers necessary.
o In the appointment of a Supreme Court judge other than the Chief Justice of India, consultation with the Chief Justice of India is constitutionally required.
· Article 217: Article 217 provides that a High Court judge is appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State and the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court.
· Article 222: Article 222 empowers the President to transfer a judge from one High Court to another after consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
· Article 223: Article 223 provides for the appointment of an Acting Chief Justice of a High Court when the office is vacant or the Chief Justice is unable to perform the duties of the office.
· Article 224: Article 224 authorises the appointment of Additional and Acting Judges of High Courts when there is a temporary increase in work or accumulation of pending cases.
· Article 224A: Article 224A permits the Chief Justice of a High Court, with the previous consent of the President, to request a retired High Court judge to sit and act as a judge of that High Court.
The relevant constitutional provisions continue to provide for appointment by the President, but the meaning of consultation has been shaped by the Supreme Court’s judgments.
Appointment Procedures
Chief Justice of India: The senior-most Supreme Court judge is conventionally appointed as the Chief Justice of India by the President on the recommendation of the outgoing CJI through the Union Government.
Supreme Court Judges: The appointment of a Supreme Court judge begins with the recommendation of the Supreme Court Collegium headed by the Chief Justice of India after considering merit, integrity, seniority and other relevant factors.
o The recommendation is forwarded to the President through the Law Minister and the Prime Minister, and a reiterated Collegium recommendation is ordinarily binding on the Government.
Chief Justice of a High Court: The President appoints the Chief Justice of a High Court after consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the Governor of the concerned State under Article 217.
o The appointment process for other (puisne) High Court judges is broadly similar, with the additional requirement that the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court is also consulted.
Arguments in Favour of the Collegium System
- Protects Judicial Independence (Article 50): The Collegium reduces executive influence in judicial appointments, thereby safeguarding judicial independence, which is a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
- Strengthens Separation of Powers (Articles 50, 121 & 211): Judicial primacy in appointments preserves the constitutional balance between the judiciary, legislature and executive, preventing political interference in the administration of justice.
- Ensures Effective Constitutional Guardianship (Articles 32, 136, 141 & 142): An independent judiciary is better equipped to protect Fundamental Rights, exercise judicial review and uphold constitutional supremacy without external pressure.
Arguments Against the Collegium System
- No Constitutional or Statutory Basis: The Collegium System is not mentioned in the Constitution or any law; it was created through the Second Judges Case (1993) and expanded in the Third Judges Case (1998).
- Lack of Transparency: The selection process is largely confidential, with no publicly prescribed eligibility criteria or recorded reasons for selecting or rejecting candidates.
- Persistent Judicial Vacancies: Delays in recommendations and appointments have contributed to a large number of vacancies in the higher judiciary. As of 1 August 2026, around one-third of the sanctioned strength of High Court judges remains vacant, adversely affecting the disposal of cases.
- Limited Diversity and Accountability: The Collegium has been criticised for inadequate representation of women, SCs, STs, OBCs and minorities, while also lacking an independent mechanism to review or hold its appointment decisions accountable.
- Uncle Judge Syndrome: It refers to the perception that judges may favour the appointment or elevation of their relatives, former juniors or close associates, leading to allegations of nepotism and reducing public confidence in the judiciary.
Way Forward
- Establish a Judicial Appointments Commission: The 121st Law Commission Report (1987) and the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2002) recommended creating a broad-based Judicial Appointments Commission while safeguarding judicial independence.
- Ensure Greater Transparency: The Collegium should adopt objective selection criteria and publish reasons for appointments and transfers to enhance public confidence.
- Create a Permanent Secretariat: The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) recommended institutional mechanisms with proper records and administrative support to improve efficiency and accountability.
- Promote Diversity and Merit: Appointments should ensure adequate representation of women, SCs, STs, OBCs, minorities and candidates from diverse professional backgrounds while maintaining merit as the primary criterion.
- Fix Timelines for Appointments: The judiciary and executive should follow a time-bound appointment process to reduce vacancies and ensure the timely filling of judicial posts.
Conclusion
The Collegium System has played an important role in protecting judicial independence from political interference, but its lack of transparency, diversity and institutional accountability has generated serious concerns. Reform should not replace judicial primacy with executive dominance; instead, India needs a transparent, broad-based and constitutionally safeguarded appointment mechanism that combines independence with accountability.
FAQs
Q1. Is the Collegium System mentioned in the Constitution?
Answer: No. It evolved through the Supreme Court’s Three Judges Cases.
Q2. Which case established the Collegium System in India?
Answer: The Second Judges Case (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, 1993) established the Collegium System.
Q3. Which constitutional amendment attempted to replace the Collegium System?
Answer: The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 established the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), which was struck down in 2015.
Q4. Who appoints the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts?
Answer: The President of India appoints Supreme Court and High Court judges under Articles 124 and 217, respectively, based on the constitutional process as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
