The Collegium is Not a Safeguard — It Has Become a Cartel

The Collegium is Not a Safeguard — It Has Become a Cartel
By Advocate Amaresh Yadav, Supreme Court of India

In his recent address, Justice Surya Kant called the Collegium system “imperfect but essential,” describing it as a “crucial institutional safeguard” for judicial independence. With due respect to His Lordship, I must emphatically disagree. The Collegium, far from being a guardian of independence, has morphed into a cartelized nexus of familial, regional, and elite law firm interests—opaque, self-serving, and unaccountable to the very Constitution it claims to protect.

1. Myth of Autonomy, Reality of Arbitrary Secrecy

The oft-repeated defense of the Collegium is that it insulates judges from executive and legislative interference. But insulation without accountability leads not to independence, but to impunity. The Collegium system operates in complete secrecy, with no recorded minutes, no objective criteria, and no transparency in decisions. Even the Right to Information (RTI) Act cannot penetrate this wall.

Is it independence, or is it a shadow government within the judiciary, where select senior judges handpick their successors, sometimes even ignoring seniority, merit, or diversity?

2. Entrenched Elitism: A Nexus of Law Firms and Lineage

It is not a coincidence that a disproportionate number of recent appointees to High Courts and the Supreme Court come from:

The families of sitting or retired judges,
Former office-bearers of elite Bar Associations,
Specific high-fee law firms repeatedly appearing in sensitive corporate and constitutional matters.

The Judiciary, which should be the most meritocratic and accessible branch, is increasingly becoming the preserve of those with legacy, networking, and deep pockets. No marginalized community, no rural or first-generation lawyer can dream of reaching the bench under this silent cartel.

3. Failed Promises of Reform: Transparency is Cosmetic

Justice Kant claims that recent steps have been taken to bring transparency. What are these steps? Uploading Collegium resolutions after months of delay, or revealing select files only when the media has already uncovered them? These are not systemic reforms, but PR management.

Where is the reform of:

Objective selection criteria?
Independent screening committees?
Representation from SC/ST/OBC, women, and regional bar associations?

No such structural overhaul has been initiated. The status quo is preserved, and the cartel remains intact.

4. Constitutional Originalism Demands Accountability

The Constitution of India never envisaged the Collegium system. In fact, Article 124 speaks of judicial appointments by the President in consultation with judges—but does not confer exclusive power to a few judges to act unilaterally. The Collegium system was judicially created through the Second Judges Case (1993), not constitutionally mandated.

When a system invented by judicial interpretation violates the spirit of Article 14 (equality) and Article 21 (due process), it must be revisited, not romanticized.

5. Towards a Democratic, Transparent Appointment System

What India needs is neither executive dominance nor judicial monopoly. We need a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) with:

Equal representation from judiciary, executive, and civil society;
Clear eligibility, diversity, and merit standards;
Public interviews or reasoned justifications for appointments.

The NJAC was struck down in 2015 for violating judicial independence—but does secrecy ensure independence? Is a “gentleman’s club” model more constitutional than a democratic commission?

Conclusion: Call It What It Is — A Judicial Cartel

Justice Surya Kant’s remarks, though eloquent, ignore the rot that has set in. The Collegium system is not just “imperfect”—it is a cartel of selective law firms and dynastic families, legitimized by a self-righteous myth of independence. As members of the Bar and guardians of constitutional values, we must call it out, challenge it legally and morally, and demand a transparent, equitable, and modern judicial appointment process.

Judicial independence does not mean judicial monopoly. And legal fraternity is not meant to be a feudal inheritance. It must be a level playing field.

Amaresh Yadav

Amaresh Yadav