SC Mandates Timely Collegium Recommendations Implementation
- ByAdmin --
- 25 Apr 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The Supreme Court of India has issued a firm directive to the Union Government, mandating the timely implementation of Collegium recommendations concerning judicial appointments and transfers. This development comes in light of growing concerns over prolonged delays, even in cases where the Collegium has reiterated its recommendations, which the Court observed undermines judicial independence and the Constitution’s basic structure.
Background
Under Article 124(2) and Article 217(1) of the Constitution, judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed by the President in consultation with the judiciary. The Collegium system, evolved through landmark cases such as the Second Judges Case (1993) and the Third Judges Case (1998), established the judiciary’s primacy in such appointments.
However, several judicial appointments recommended by the Collegium have faced delays from the executive, even after reiteration. This has led to mounting judicial vacancies and rising pendency in courts.
Supreme Court’s Observations
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia took serious note of the issue, stating that delays in implementing reiterated recommendations breach constitutional obligations. The Court observed:
- Once the Collegium reiterates a name, the government is constitutionally bound to notify the appointment.
- Delays amount to “cherry-picking”, which is not permissible and affects the independence of the judiciary.
- The executive's inaction violates the separation of powers, a principle upheld in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) judgment.
Directions Issued by the Supreme Court
The Court issued clear and time-bound directives:
- The Centre must notify all pending Collegium recommendations, particularly reiterated ones, within three to four weeks.
- No further reconsideration is allowed once the Collegium reiterates a name.
- Any further delays could attract contempt proceedings, invoking Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution.
Impact and Significance
This order aims to restore discipline and urgency in judicial appointments and tackle India’s growing judicial backlog. As of April 2025, over 30% of High Court judge positions remain vacant, leading to case pile-ups and delays in justice delivery.
Significance includes:
- Upholding the basic structure doctrine and ensuring judicial independence.
- Preventing executive overreach in judicial matters.
- Addressing the severe vacancy crisis in courts.
Legal Community’s Reaction
- The legal fraternity has largely welcomed the move, calling it a necessary step to safeguard judicial autonomy.
- Senior advocates stressed that the government must now avoid selective implementation and respect the binding nature of reiterated recommendations.
- Some experts continue to advocate for greater transparency within the Collegium process itself, though this remains a separate debate.
Centre’s Stand
The Union Government has consistently raised concerns regarding the lack of transparency and accountability in the Collegium system. In 2014, the government attempted to replace the Collegium with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). However, in 2015, the SC struck down the NJAC Act, declaring it unconstitutional for undermining judicial independence (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, 2015).
Despite policy disagreements, the government remains constitutionally obligated to act on reiterated Collegium recommendations.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s directive is a clear reaffirmation of the constitutional mandate governing judicial appointments. By setting strict timelines and reinforcing the binding nature of reiterated recommendations, the judiciary has sought to protect its independence and ensure a smoother appointment process.
With increasing public concern over delayed justice and mounting vacancies, this ruling sends a strong message: constitutional obligations cannot be held hostage to executive discretion.
RELATED Blog
0 comments