Supreme Court vs. Executive: Recent Tensions in Judicial Appointments
- ByAdmin --
- 30 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
In recent years, India has witnessed a growing tension between the Supreme Court and the Executive over the appointment of judges to constitutional courts. At the heart of this friction lies the Collegium system, which gives the judiciary primacy in recommending appointments and transfers of judges, and the Executive's delays or reluctance to act on those recommendations.
This ongoing deadlock has sparked debate not just about separation of powers, but also about the independence of the judiciary, timely justice, and the transparency of the selection process.
Understanding the Collegium System
- Established through judicial rulings (the Three Judges Cases), the Collegium comprises the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and senior judges of the Supreme Court.
- It recommends names for appointments and transfers in the higher judiciary.
- The Executive (President/Government) may send a recommendation back once, but must accept it if reiterated by the Collegium.
Flashpoints in Recent Times
1. Delays in Appointments and Clearances
- The Collegium has flagged unjustified delays by the Executive in clearing names. In some instances, reiterated recommendations have remained pending for months.
- The SC has called this a “serious breach” of constitutional protocol and judicial independence.
- High Court vacancies remain alarmingly high, directly impacting justice delivery.
2. Selective Acceptance
- The government has been accused of cherry-picking names—clearing some while sitting on others without offering reasons.
- This raises concerns of executive overreach and undermining of the judiciary’s authority in appointments.
3. Conflict Over Rejected Names
- The SC has reiterated that the Executive cannot sit in judgment over suitability once a recommendation is reaffirmed.
- Despite this, there have been instances where such names were not acted upon, creating institutional deadlock.
Constitutional and Judicial Perspective
- Article 124 (Supreme Court) and Article 217 (High Courts) lay down the appointment process, which has evolved through judicial interpretation.
- In the Second Judges Case, the SC held that “consultation” with the judiciary meant concurrence, giving rise to the Collegium system.
- The NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission) Act, which attempted to give the Executive more control, was struck down in 2015 as unconstitutional, reaffirming judicial primacy.
Judiciary’s Stand
- The Court has emphasized that judicial independence is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
- It has warned the Executive that delays and interference erode public trust, affect court efficiency, and violate constitutional mandates.
Executive’s Concerns
- The Government argues for greater transparency, diversity, and national security clearances in appointments.
- It has criticized the Collegium for being opaque, elitist, and lacking accountability.
While some of these concerns are widely acknowledged, the solution proposed by the Executive—greater control—has raised red flags over judicial autonomy.
Recent Developments
- The Court has started publishing Collegium resolutions for transparency.
- Calls for a reformed memorandum of procedure (MoP) to regulate appointments have gone unanswered for years.
- In 2024, the Court reiterated that Executive inaction amounts to constitutional defiance, but stopped short of initiating contempt proceedings.
Conclusion
The ongoing friction between the Supreme Court and the Executive over judicial appointments reflects a deeper struggle between autonomy and accountability, transparency and control, and speed and scrutiny. While reforms are necessary to make the Collegium system more inclusive and transparent, executive interference cannot be the price for that reform.
For a strong democracy, judicial independence must not only exist—but be seen to exist. The way forward lies in collaborative reforms, respecting institutional roles while safeguarding the spirit of the Constitution.
0 comments