Context

• The recent fire brigade incident in Delhi, which led to the discovery of half-burnt currency notes at the residence of a High Court judge, has reignited concerns over judicial accountability in India.
• Therefore, it is important to critically examine the larger issue of transparency and integrity within the Indian judiciary, particularly focusing on the Collegium system of selecting judges.
• Moreover, it is crucial to discuss the need for reforms, and the proposal for an Indian Judicial Service (IJS) to address systemic inefficiencies.

A Persistent Concern Over Judicial Accountability

• The fire brigade incident, though shocking, is only one among several recent controversies that have cast a shadow on judicial credibility.
• The Supreme Court’s intervention in staying an insensitive verdict by a High Court judge regarding a minor’s sexual harassment case further exposes the lack of quality control in judicial appointments.
• Additionally, the Supreme Court's response to the Lokpal’s attempt to investigate corruption allegations against a judge underscores the judiciary’s resistance to external oversight.
• These instances collectively reflect a judicial system struggling to maintain accountability while remaining immune to public scrutiny.

Flaws in the Collegium System

• Lack of Transparency
  • The selection and elevation of judges occur behind closed doors, with no formal records, criteria, or explanations made public.
  • The decision-making process lacks objective standards, and the reasons behind selections or rejections are rarely disclosed.
  • This opacity has led to speculation about favouritism, bias, and even corruption within the judicial selection process.
  • The judiciary often declines to share the details of why certain candidates are selected over others, leading to a lack of public confidence.
  • In contrast, other civil service appointments, such as the IAS and IPS, follow a structured and transparent selection process.
• Nepotism and Judicial Dynasties
  • Since appointments are controlled by a small group of senior judges, there is a tendency to favour candidates who belong to influential legal families.
  • This has led to the emergence of judicial dynasties, where judges' relatives are more likely to be selected over equally or more competent candidates from diverse backgrounds.
  • This practice restricts the entry of talented individuals who do not have personal connections within the judiciary.
  • Studies have shown that a significant number of High Court and Supreme Court judges come from families with a history in the judiciary or legal profession.
  • This concentration of power limits opportunities for meritorious candidates from underprivileged backgrounds.
• Absence of Merit-Based Selection Criteria
  • Unlike other professional recruitment processes, where clear eligibility criteria, examinations, and evaluations determine appointments, the Collegium system does not have a standardised, merit-based selection mechanism.
  • There is no written test, interview panel, or structured assessment of a judge’s legal knowledge, ethical standards, or past judgments.
  • As a result, the selection process often becomes subjective, favouring those with personal or professional proximity to the Collegium members.
  • In the civil services, candidates undergo rigorous exams and interviews before being selected.
  • However, in the Collegium system, judges are often chosen based on internal discussions with no formal assessment of their judicial competence, integrity, or decision-making abilities.
• Arbitrary Transfers and Promotions
  • Another major flaw is the opaque system of judicial transfers and promotions.
  • The Collegium decides which judges will be transferred from one High Court to another or elevated to the Supreme Court, but the reasons behind such decisions are rarely disclosed.
  • This lack of accountability has led to suspicions that transfers may be influenced by favouritism, personal biases, or political considerations.
  • In several instances, judges who delivered controversial verdicts or took strong stands against influential figures were transferred to other High Courts without any clear explanation.
  • This raises concerns that transfers are sometimes used as a tool for controlling judges rather than ensuring efficiency in the judiciary.
• Resistance to External Oversight
  • Despite the criticism, the judiciary has strongly resisted attempts to introduce external oversight mechanisms.
  • The rejection of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) in 2015 is a prime example of this resistance.
  • The NJAC was designed to make judicial appointments more accountable by involving representatives from both the judiciary and the executive.
  • However, the Supreme Court struck it down, citing concerns over judicial independence.
  • While independence is crucial, absolute autonomy without checks and balances can lead to an unaccountable system.
  • Even when allegations of corruption or misconduct arise, the judiciary prefers internal inquiries, which are often perceived as biased or ineffective.
  • In contrast, public officials in other branches of government are subject to investigations by independent bodies such as the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and Lokpal.
• Lack of Diversity in the Higher Judiciary
  • The Collegium system has also contributed to a lack of diversity in judicial appointments.
  • Women, Dalits, Adivasis, and candidates from economically weaker backgrounds remain significantly underrepresented in the higher judiciary.
  • This lack of inclusivity affects the credibility of the judiciary and limits perspectives in judicial decision-making.
  • As of recent years, only a small percentage of Supreme Court and High Court judges are women, despite the increasing presence of women in the legal profession.
  • Similarly, representation from marginalized communities remains disproportionately low.

The Case for an Indian Judicial Service (IJS)

• Diversity and Inclusivity: The current judiciary is dominated by a few elite families, with limited representation from marginalized communities and women. A nationwide examination would open doors for deserving candidates from all backgrounds.
• Merit-Based Selection: A structured, competitive recruitment process would ensure that judges are selected based on knowledge, competence, and ethical integrity rather than personal connections.
• Transparent Selection Process: Unlike the closed-door Collegium meetings, the IJS recruitment process would be conducted in a publicly accountable manner, reducing the scope for favouritism.
• Standardized Training: Newly appointed judges could undergo rigorous training in various branches of law, ensuring uniformity in judicial competence across different courts.
• Insulation from Executive Interference: The judiciary can still maintain its independence by formulating selection criteria while entrusting the recruitment process to an external, neutral body like the UPSC.

Conclusion

• The repeated controversies surrounding the judiciary indicate that judicial accountability and selection processes in India need urgent reforms.
• While the Collegium system has allowed the judiciary to remain independent, its lack of transparency has led to serious concerns about favouritism and inefficiency.
• The NJAC, though struck down, could be reconsidered with necessary safeguards to prevent executive overreach.
• More importantly, the establishment of an Indian Judicial Service could be a game-changing reform that ensures a fair, merit-based, and transparent process for judicial appointments.