The Need for Transparency in the Judicial Collegium System and Dissent Disclosure
This opinion piece discusses the lack of transparency in the Supreme Court Collegium, highlighted by Justice B.V. Nagarathna's recent dissent regarding a judicial appointment. It argues that the 'culture of justification' is missing in the judiciary's own administrative decisions. While the Collegium system vests power in senior judges, the lack of public reasoning for appointments or rejections erodes institutional legitimacy. The author suggests that the judiciary must subject itself to the same standards of openness it demands from other branches of government to maintain public trust and democratic accountability.
Key Points
- The Collegium system is a product of judge-made law from the Second (1993) and Third (1998) Judges Cases.
- Dissent within the Collegium is rarely made public, leading to a perception of total opacity in judicial appointments.
- Comparisons are drawn with the UK and South Africa, where judicial selection processes involve more public scrutiny.
- Transparency is argued to be essential for democratic accountability and maintaining the judiciary's own legitimacy.
Exam Facts
- Second Judges Case (1993)
- Third Judges Case (1998)
- Justice B.V. Nagarathna (dissenting judge)
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.