Indian Democracy in 100 Notes · ⚖️ Theme 4: Judiciary
How judges are appointed: the collegium debate
Who should choose judges? In India, the answer has been shaped less by a single constitutional clause than by a series of Supreme Court judgments. The Constitution says judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed by the President, after consultation. It does not use the word "collegium". The collegium system grew out of what are known as the Judges Cases.
In the First Judges Case, in 1981, the Court gave primacy to the executive in appointments. That position was reversed in the Second Judges Case, in 1993, when the Court held that the Chief Justice of India's view, formed with senior colleagues, should have primacy. The Third Judges Case, in 1998, clarified the composition: for the Supreme Court, the collegium is the Chief Justice plus the four senior-most judges; for High Courts, the High Court collegium is the Chief Justice of the High Court plus two senior-most judges. Recommendations go to the government, which may ask for reconsideration, but the established position is that a reiterated recommendation is ordinarily binding.
Parliament tried a different model in 2014. The Constitution (99th Amendment) Act and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act created a six-member commission including the Chief Justice, two senior Supreme Court judges, the Union Law Minister, and two eminent persons. In 2015, in the Fourth Judges Case, a five-judge bench struck down the NJAC by a 4:1 majority, holding that judicial primacy in appointments was part of the basic structure and that the commission as designed undermined judicial independence. The collegium system was restored.
Supporters of the collegium argue that judges are best placed to assess judicial ability and that executive involvement risks political appointments, especially since the government is a frequent litigant. Critics argue that the system is opaque, that reasons for selection or non-selection are not fully public, and that it can favour seniority and familiarity over wider diversity and merit. Reform proposals debated in public include publishing clearer criteria, creating a secretariat to check credentials, and improving transparency without giving the executive a veto. None of these proposals is settled, and the debate continues.
Suggested picture (licence to confirm): D gate Entrance of the Supreme Court, New Delhi.jpg — licence not confirmed, so the image is not embedded here.
Key takeaways
- The collegium is a judge-led appointment system that evolved through court judgments, not a term in the original constitutional text.
- The NJAC, created in 2014, was struck down in 2015, restoring the collegium.
- The debate pits protection from political influence against demands for transparency, diversity, and accountability.
Why it matters for civil studies: Appointment rules shape who becomes a judge, and therefore how the Constitution is interpreted for a generation.
Discussion question: Can a system be both independent from politics and transparent to the public — and what would that look like in practice?
Fact-checked copy, 1 November 2026. Disputed claims are attributed in the text; moving topics should be re-checked at the time of reading.