Calls for Transparency in Supreme Court Collegium Appointments Amid Growing Opacity

The Supreme Court’s collegium is facing renewed criticism after Justice Ujjal Bhuyan urged greater openness. Aspirants must understand why transparency, accountability and judicial independence are being debated in the context of India’s constitutional framework. Key Developments (Bullet Points) Oct 2017 : Collegium began publishing brief reasons for elevations. Nov 28, 2024 : Publication of members’ names and reasons stopped. Nov 2025 : Then CJI B.R. Gavai confirmed the decision to cease detailed disclosures, citing candidate privacy. 2023 : MediaOne judgment declared sealed‑cover secrecy “antithetical to a transparent system”. 2025 : Study showed ~30% of Supreme Court judges had familial links to former judges. Important Facts The collegium evolved through three landmark cases: First Judges Case , Second Judges Case , and Third Judges Case . Today, the collegium consists of the CJI and four senior judges. Critics point out the lack of a public vacancy list, eligibility matrix, or documented assessment methodology. In 2018, the Union flagged 11 of 33 names from the Allahabad High Court collegium as relatives of sitting or retired judges. By 2025, roughly 10 of 33 Supreme Court judges were identified as “uncle judges”. UPSC Relevance Understanding this debate touches several GS papers. Article 14 and Article 16 require transparent recruitment for public offices, raising the question of whether the highest courts are exempt. The Supreme Court’s ruling in CPIO vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019) placed the CJI’s office under the Right to Information Act , yet the same openness has not been extended to judicial appointments. Comparative examples such as the United Kingdom’s Judicial Appointments Commission and South Africa’s Judicial Service Commission illustrate that transparency can coexist with independence. Way Forward Reforms need not dismantle the collegium. A modern framework could: Publish anticipated vacancies well in advance. Invite applications from eligible advocates and senior lawyers. Define clear eligibility criteria and a transparent scoring matrix. Provide reasoned recommendations (without revealing confidential integrity files). Such steps would align the judiciary with constitutional values of equality, fairness and accountability, strengthening public trust while preserving judicial independence.