The Indian judiciary, long revered as the guardian of constitutional integrity, now grapples with an unsettling truth—its appointment system remains mired in legacy, secrecy, and allegations of nepotism. The Collegium system, crafted through judicial interpretation in 1993, lies at the heart of this controversy. Critics argue that it perpetuates an exclusive network where judges appoint their kin and close associates, sidelining merit and transparency.
The deep-seated flaws within judicial appointments expose how select families wield disproportionate influence over India’s higher judiciary and makes a compelling case for dismantling the Collegium system. A transparent, merit-driven selection process can revive the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) as a means to restore credibility and fairness.
Judicial independence remains the bedrock of democracy, but urgent questions demand answers. Can India implement global best practices to ensure impartiality in judicial appointments? How can the cycle of political and familial dominance be broken? Most crucially, what reforms are needed to rebuild public trust in the judiciary as a truly independent institution?
In this exclusive conversation with The Interview World, Mathews J. Nedumpara—Founder of Nedumpara & Nedumpara Law Firm and President of the National Lawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms—delivers a sharp critique of the undesirable impact of Collegium system on merit-based selection and institutional integrity. He underscores the urgent need for a fair, transparent selection process that fosters diverse representation and strengthens justice delivery. Drawing insights from international models, he outlines key reforms essential for making India’s judiciary more accountable, transparent, and merit-driven.
Read on for a bold, unfiltered take on the urgent need for judicial reforms in India.
Q: The Supreme Court has seen a notable presence of judges’ kin rising within the system. How do you assess the impact of judicial legacy on merit-based selection and institutional integrity?
A: The Collegium system for judicial appointments is nothing more than institutionalized nepotism. I raised this issue before the Supreme Court during the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) case, highlighting its deep-rooted flaws.
This system originated in 1993 when the Supreme Court, through the Second Judges Case, reinterpreted the Constitution to establish the Collegium system. In doing so, it created a structure that contradicts the very principles of jurisprudence. By granting sitting judges unchecked authority to appoint their successors, the system perpetuates favouritism. Judges often select their kin or close associates, ensuring that most senior appointments stem from this self-serving arrangement. While exceptions exist, the Collegium system overwhelmingly prioritizes connections over competence.
Recently, we compiled a detailed progeny chart of the Indian judiciary, mapping familial ties among sitting and retired judges. The results were indisputable—every Supreme Court judge has a direct link to a former judge or an influential figure, such as a chief minister. Not a single appointment in recent history has been based solely on merit, without the backing of powerful connections.
To ascend to the Supreme Court, a candidate must enter the High Court judiciary in their early 40s. While a handful of judges have risen through sheer ability, the vast majority owe their positions to nepotism. A select few families have effectively captured the judiciary, shaping its leadership for generations.
Having practiced law since 1979, I have observed this system closely for over four decades. The opacity in selecting senior advocates for judgeship under the Collegium system was as prevalent then as it is today. Merit has never been the defining criterion for judicial appointments. Instead, the system has sustained an entrenched cycle of favouritism for years.
This opaque structure must be dismantled. Replacing it with a transparent, merit-driven process is not just necessary—it is essential to restoring public faith in the judiciary.
Q: How can we establish a fair, transparent judicial selection system that ensures diverse representation and enhances justice delivery?
A: The Modi government sought to reform judicial appointments through the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). However, this issue predates Modi’s tenure—it began with the Collegium system’s creation in 1993. Parliament enacted NJAC to introduce transparency, yet the Supreme Court struck it down, effectively overriding a law passed by the nation’s elected representatives. This blatant dismissal of parliamentary authority should have triggered nationwide outrage. In any true democracy, such judicial overreach would have sparked an intense political and public backlash. Instead, India remained silent.
Both the Modi government and the Congress party share responsibility for this failure. The government misjudged the magnitude of the problem, treating it as a procedural dispute rather than a constitutional crisis. Worse, its legal team failed to mount a robust challenge. I witnessed this firsthand as a party to the case. Those in power actively opposed my arguments because they wanted the Supreme Court to function as both the supreme legislature and the supreme executive, consolidating control to serve their own interests. Absolute judicial dominance benefits politicians who fear accountability.
The judiciary has no jurisdiction over policy matters because courts cannot rule on issues without hearing all affected parties. The principles of natural justice demand participation, yet judicial overreach denies the people a voice. When Parliament enacts a law, the electorate is symbolically present through its representatives. When courts legislate from the bench, the public is completely excluded. These decisions happen behind closed doors, shielded from democratic scrutiny. The logic is simple, yet the system continues unchecked.
Parliamentarians and even the President bear responsibility for allowing this imbalance. Governance must not be dictated by unelected judges. Judicial supremacy undermines democracy by replacing elected authority with an unaccountable elite. Unlike politicians, who must answer to the people, judges remain insulated from electoral scrutiny. A functioning democracy requires every institution to operate within its defined role. Yet the judiciary continues to wield unchecked power, eroding the very foundation of democratic governance.
Q: What key reforms are needed to make India’s judicial system more transparent, accountable, and merit-based?
A: The people of this country deserve a judicial system that is fair, transparent, and accountable. Failing to uphold these principles undermines the very foundation of democracy. When a natural law exists, it must be allowed to function without interference. However, systemic deficiencies persist, and public opinion plays a vital role in addressing them. History proves that public discourse has rectified many institutional flaws.
Now, it is imperative to reinstate the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). The system was never given a fair chance to function as intended. Judicial appointments must follow a structured and transparent process—vacancies should be publicly announced, applications invited, and a written test conducted, similar to the civil services selection process. While bureaucracy has its flaws, a merit-driven approach is essential for ensuring competence and integrity.
Judicial appointments must not remain the privilege of an exclusive circle. Even in nature, inbreeding weakens vitality and resilience. The Collegium system has created a similar insular environment, leading to judicial inbreeding, which fosters inefficiency and corruption.
Appointments are influenced by various external factors. The Prime Minister receives dockets containing candidate information, yet these documents often fail to provide a complete picture. Intelligence agencies, particularly the Intelligence Bureau (IB), offer confidential inputs unavailable to the public. These assessments help determine whether an appointee has financial irregularities or ethical concerns, including undisclosed foreign assets.
The government possesses extensive intelligence, but the real challenge lies in its application. A judiciary that truly values independence must ensure that appointments are free from vested interests and political manoeuvring. Genuine independence can only be achieved through a process that is clean, fair, and rooted in merit.
Q: Countries like the UK and the US have more open and structured judicial appointment processes. What lessons can India adopt from international models to ensure a fairer, more transparent judiciary?
A: India must take decisive steps to reform its judicial appointment system, drawing crucial lessons from countries like the UK and the US. Both nations have established independent judicial commissions that uphold transparency, accountability, and meritocracy. In contrast, India’s Collegium system, originally designed to protect judicial independence, now faces mounting criticism for its opaque decision-making and exclusion of broader stakeholder participation.
Judicial appointments in the US and the UK involve diverse selection committees, ensuring representation from various sections of society. Meanwhile, India’s proposed National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) comprised only six members, with the judiciary holding half the representation. The committee included the Chief Justice of India, the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition, effectively making the Prime Minister the sole government representative. The inclusion of two “eminent persons” from outside the judiciary sparked further controversy, with critics arguing that their lack of judicial expertise rendered their involvement unconstitutional.
Transparency in judicial appointments remains a critical concern. A stark example is the BJP government’s appointment of retired Supreme Court judge Justice A.K. Goel as Chairperson of the National Green Tribunal in 2018. Many saw this as a calculated move to position retired judges in key roles that align with the executive’s interests, highlighting the judiciary’s vulnerability to political manoeuvring.
The current government appears more focused on appointing judges who align with its governance agenda rather than implementing meaningful judicial reforms. This preference for compliant judges has eroded the judiciary’s role as an impartial pillar of justice, reducing it to a tool of political convenience. However, this issue is not unique to the present regime. No political party in India has remained immune from influencing the judiciary to serve its interests. Even the Congress party has, at times, exploited judicial reforms for political advantage.
India needs a judicial system that upholds democracy, transparency, accountability, and fairness—one that remains truly independent and free from political interference. Real reforms must establish a merit-driven selection process with broader participation and rigorous oversight. Only then can the judiciary regain public trust and reinforce its role as the ultimate guardian of justice.
1 Comment
Only advocates can change the justice system