Delay in Judicial Appointments: What Collegium Judgments Reveal
- ByAdmin --
- 30 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The Indian judiciary, particularly the higher courts, has long faced criticism over vacant judicial positions, case backlogs, and slow appointments. At the heart of this issue lies the Collegium system, a judge-led mechanism responsible for recommending appointments and transfers in the higher judiciary.
Over the years, various Supreme Court judgments have defended, refined, and even critiqued the collegium process. Yet, delays in judicial appointments persist—often due to friction between the judiciary and the executive. This article explores what the Court’s rulings and observations reveal about the challenges and future of judicial appointments in India.
The Collegium System: A Quick Overview
- Established through a series of Supreme Court rulings known as the Three Judges Cases.
- Empowers a group of senior Supreme Court judges (including the Chief Justice of India) to recommend appointments to the SC and High Courts.
- The executive may send a recommendation back once, but if the collegium reiterates it, the appointment is binding.
What the Judgments Reveal
1. Judicial Primacy Is Non-Negotiable
Through its judgments, the SC has made it clear that judicial independence is central to the Constitution. Any system that gives primacy to the executive in judicial appointments has been struck down or weakened.
- The Court struck down efforts to replace the collegium with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), citing concerns over independence.
- It held that executive interference could compromise impartiality and fairness in the judiciary.
2. Timelines Are Often Ignored
In recent years, the Court has repeatedly reprimanded the Centre for delays in clearing names recommended or reiterated by the collegium. Some appointments take months or even years, leading to vacant High Court positions and mounting case pendency.
- The Court has stressed that delay in appointments undermines access to justice and erodes public trust in the system.
- Despite observations, the Court itself has not enforced a strict deadline for government action.
3. Lack of Transparency Is a Concern
Critics argue that the collegium operates with limited transparency and accountability. While the SC has started publishing collegium resolutions and reasons for its decisions, many aspects—like why names are dropped or delayed—remain opaque.
- The Court acknowledges this issue but has yet to implement structural reform.
- Internal disagreements within the collegium also lead to inconsistent recommendations.
Recent Trends and Observations (Post-2020)
- The SC has noted the executive's selective approach—accepting some recommendations quickly while delaying others without explanation.
- It has emphasized that reiterated names must be cleared without delay, reiterating its constitutional finality.
- The Court has also flagged the impact on justice delivery, especially in High Courts where vacancies are high.
Constitutional Issues at Stake
- Article 124 and 217 – Relate to appointments of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
- Separation of powers – Delays and interference blur the constitutional boundary between the judiciary and the executive.
- Rule of law and access to justice – Both are compromised when courts are understaffed and citizens face delays in hearings.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgments on judicial appointments consistently reaffirm the primacy of the judiciary in protecting its own independence. However, they also reflect the persistent tensions with the executive and the system’s internal shortcomings.
To resolve the crisis, there must be mutual respect, clear timelines, and possibly institutional reform—either through a reformed collegium or a more balanced, transparent alternative. Until then, delays in judicial appointments will continue to affect not just the courts but the very idea of timely justice in India.
RELATED Blog
0 comments