The recent discovery of piles of cash at a sitting judge’s residence has been used as a base to stir the long-held debate over the appointment process of judges. Corruption, casteism, and political bias in judicial appointments have long been whispered about, but the issue now seems to have reached a boiling point. Critics of the collegium system have suddenly found a golden opportunity to harp on the continuing appointment process, and advocate for the NJAC — scrapped almost a decade ago. It is well known that the collegium system has been a thorn in the flesh for the NDA government which has made certain failed attempts to overhaul the system in favour of NJAC.
However, political overtones apart, judicial appointments in India have always been messy. In the early years post-independence, the government had the upper hand. But that power was blatantly misused, especially during the mid-1970s, when judges were largely believed to be appointed based on loyalty rather than merit. The judiciary fought back by creating the collegium system, where senior judges picked their successors. This was meant to protect judicial independence, but it, too, quickly turned into an opaque, old-boys’ club. The collegium system is shrouded in secrecy. There’s no transparency, no accountability, and no way to challenge a bad pick. Allegations of nepotism and favouritism are rampant. From casteist and communal remarks to outright corruption, several judges have made headlines for all the wrong reasons. The infamous Justice Karnan episode, where a sitting High Court judge accused his colleagues of corruption and caste bias, was a wake-up call. But nothing changed.
In 2014, the Modi government tried to clean up the mess with the NJAC. It proposed a new system where the Chief Justice of India, two senior Supreme Court judges, the Law Minister, and two eminent persons would decide appointments. The idea was to bring some outside perspective while keeping the judiciary’s primacy intact. But in 2015, the Supreme Court struck it down, arguing that giving outsiders a say would compromise judicial independence. Critics believe the real reason was that the judiciary didn’t want to lose its monopoly. However, undue influence of the ruling establishment on the Indian judiciary could have been no less dangerous. Could NJAC have worked with some tweaks? Many experts think so. A system where the Chief Justice had the final say while still allowing for external checks might have been a fair compromise. But instead of fine-tuning it, those on the metaphoric discussion table threw the whole idea away, leaving the nation stuck with the seemingly broken collegium system.
One possible solution is the All-India Judicial Service (AIJS), an idea that’s been floating around for decades. Modelled after the IAS and IPS, it would ensure that judges are selected based on merit rather than personal connections. The Constitution allows for it, but successive governments have dragged their feet. Implementing AIJS could bring much-needed professionalism and transparency to judicial appointments. Right now, India’s judiciary—an institution that decides the fate of laws, policies, and individual rights—operates without a clear rulebook for hiring its own judges. The Memorandum of Procedure that is supposed to guide appointments is still stuck in a tug-of-war between the executive and the judiciary. It’s absurd that a system so crucial to democracy runs on unwritten, arbitrary rules. We need urgent reform. Whether it’s a revised NJAC or a transparent AIJS, the judiciary cannot continue to function in secrecy.