• Present System and Its Shortcomings
• The Case for Reform
• Recommended Reforms and Structural Changes
• Comparative Insights and International Lessons
• Towards an Inclusive and Accountable Judiciary

• The Collegium System, evolved through Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (1993) and Re Presidential Reference (1998), vests the power of appointments in senior judges.
• Critics, including the Law Commission (230th Report, 2009) and the Justice Venkatachaliah Commission (2002), have described the system as “opaque, elitist, and lacking in accountability.”
• The striking down of the NJAC (2015) by the Supreme Court reaffirmed judicial primacy but ignored legitimate concerns about democratic oversight and institutional transparency.

The Case for Reform

• Clemenceau’s dictum that “War is too important to be left to generals” aptly applies here — justice is too vital to be decided in closed chambers.
• With rising public interest in judicial functioning, citizen participation and institutional openness are indispensable to preserve legitimacy.
• Reforms must focus on transparency, inclusivity, diversity, and objective merit-based evaluation.

Recommended Reforms and Structural Changes

• Revised National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC):
  A reconstituted body ensuring judicial majority but including executive and eminent lay members (as suggested in Justice J.S. Verma’s 121st Report, Law Commission).
• Transparent Criteria:
  Adopt United Kingdom Judicial Appointments Commission-style procedures with public notification of vacancies, structured interviews, and published selection criteria.
• Training and Evaluation:
  Newly appointed judges should undergo mandatory induction and judicial ethics training under the control of the Supreme Court or respective High Courts, as suggested in Justice A.M. Ahmadi Committee Report (1999).

Comparative Insights and International Lessons

• United Kingdom: The Judicial Appointments Commission (2006) ensures merit-based, transparent, and diverse appointments; half of its members are non-judicial, maintaining public confidence.
• South Africa: The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) blends parliamentary, executive, and judicial members to ensure representational fairness.
• Canada: Utilises Judicial Advisory Committees (JACs) composed of judges, lawyers, and laypersons, striking a balance between independence and public accountability.
• OECD’s 2024 Governance Report recommends such mixed institutional models to avoid capture by any single branch of government while ensuring transparency and gender equity.

Towards an Inclusive and Accountable Judiciary

• Diversity and Representation:
  Only ~13% of India’s High Court judges are women (Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy Report, 2023). Increasing gender, regional, and professional diversity enhances judicial legitimacy.
• Public Confidence and Democratic Accountability:
  Transparency reduces perceptions of nepotism and reinforces faith in judicial impartiality (Centre for Policy Research, 2022).
• Institutional Oversight:
  Establish a Judicial Appointments Secretariat under the Supreme Court to maintain data on vacancies, track delays, and publish periodic appointment reports.
• Stakeholder Involvement:
  Consultation with bar associations, legal academia, and civil society in an advisory capacity ensures inclusivity without politicisation.