Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Questions Collegium Secrecy, Calls for Greater Transparency in Judicial Appointments

Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on Saturday criticized the collegium system for not disclosing the reasons behind recommending judges for elevation, saying the lack of transparency harms deserving candidates and could pave the way for unsuitable appointments.

Speaking at a discussion held during the release of a report by legal think tank Vidhi, Justice Bhuyan said the collegium's recent resolutions recommending judges for promotion did not explain the reasons behind the selections.

"I have noticed that the last three collegium resolutions recommending judges for elevation have not stated any reasons. Is this a step back from the principle of transparency?" he asked.

Justice Bhuyan argued that withholding reasons not only affects public confidence but also disadvantages highly competent judges who have performed exceptionally well.

"By not giving reasons, the institution ends up doing injustice to many outstanding judges who have done remarkable work," he said.

He further warned that the absence of transparency could enable the appointment of individuals whose conduct or public remarks may be inconsistent with constitutional values. Referring to a controversial incident involving a High Court judge—without naming the individual—Justice Bhuyan said such appointments raise concerns about the selection process.

The remarks are widely seen as referring to a former Allahabad High Court judge whose speech at a Vishva Hindu Parishad event in 2024 sparked controversy after allegedly comparing certain groups of people to "ants" and making comments that drew criticism from opposition leaders as unconstitutional and inflammatory.

Justice Bhuyan stressed that judicial appointments should involve meaningful discussion and clear reasoning to prevent unsuitable candidates from entering the judiciary.

The debate comes amid continuing discussions over the collegium system. Earlier, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant had defended the appointment process, stating that while recommending names to the Supreme Court, the collegium considers several factors, including a judge's performance, tenure, previous responsibilities, and professional record.

The issue also surfaced during a recent Supreme Court hearing on the law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that executive involvement in judicial appointments could raise concerns about judicial independence, questioning whether the judiciary's selection process should be distrusted simply because it lacks external participation.

Responding during the hearing, Justice Dipankar Datta remarked that the assumption that "judges choose judges" itself deserves scrutiny, asking whether that is truly how the system functions today.

The discussion has once again brought the transparency and accountability of judicial appointments into the spotlight, with calls for a more reasoned and open collegium process gaining renewed attention.