Transparency key to collegium credibility

The genesis of the collegium system for selecting judges for the Supreme Court (SC) and the high courts lay in the fact that prior to its inception in 1993, the widely-held perception was that if a judge wanted a promotion, it was more important to know the law minister than the law.

Yet today, the collegium — comprising the five senior-most judges in the Supreme Court — is viewed as a stumbling block in finding suitable persons to adorn the SC and high courts.

Moreover, the collegium was not set up either by the Constitution or an act of parliament, thus its creation is as a classic example of justices going beyond the Constitution to grab the power to appoint their fellow judges.

Yet today, this format is under fire for failing to elevate the meritorious and deserving Delhi high court (HC) chief justice AP Shah to the apex court. Shah has been denied a promotion to the SC twice and no one, except for the collegium members, knows why.

Ironically, denying Shah what many believe is a well-deserved promotion harks back to the days of the early 1970s, around the time Emergency was imposed upon India, when the then political leadership had promoted several junior judges over fearless and independent senior judges.

On his last day in office at the Delhi HC, a pained Justice Shah said the problem with the collegium was that its working was very secretive, lacked transparency, and the reasons for rejecting an eligible incumbent was not written down.

“It seems right now there are no parameters for selecting judges and no procedures for conducting the business of the collegium,” he said. His prescription: transparency. At least a rejected candidate should know why he was bypassed.

It is said that the latent threat to lack of respect for the judiciary lies with the men who dispense and administer justice and who are thus squarely responsible for upholding the majesty of law.

Today, people are reassessing their view about the judiciary, which is said to act on the principles of the rule of law, transparency, and accountability. Unfortunately, the judiciary stands questioned on all three counts.