Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Calls for Greater Transparency in the Collegium System
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court expressed concerns over the lack of transparency in the collegium system for appointing judges, highlighting how this opacity undermines public interest and the judiciary. Speaking at a panel discussion during the launch of “The Judicial Transparency Index” report by Vidhi’s JALDI initiative, Justice Bhuyan emphasized the importance of providing reasons for collegium proposals.
He pointed out that the absence of detailed explanations in collegium resolutions allows for the appointment of unsuitable candidates, who might subsequently make unconstitutional statements. Justice Bhuyan referred to a 2024 incident involving a former judge of the Allahabad High Court, who made controversial comments at a VHP event, implicitly criticizing Muslims.
Justice Bhuyan remarked, “By not giving reasons, the institution actually does a disservice to many judges who are genuinely outstanding. Conversely, it creates space for individuals to enter the judiciary who may later make remarks contrary to constitutional values.”
In his address, Justice Bhuyan noted that judicial appointments must involve thorough discussions with transparent reasoning. He questioned the reluctance to engage in public debate over such critical decisions, stating, “What harm is caused if there is informed public debate on such decisions?”
He also mentioned the case of Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal, whose appointment as a High Court judge was delayed by the government, despite the collegium’s repeated recommendations. “I would say the reasons given by the Supreme Court Collegium were quite convincing. At least, I am convinced by the reasoning,” Justice Bhuyan added.
More Read
Call for Openness in Judicial Appointments
Justice Bhuyan urged the JALDI team to examine the lack of transparency within the collegium system. He criticized the confidential nature of deliberations regarding the elevation and transfer of judges, noting that reasons for rejecting or postponing recommendations are rarely disclosed.
During the panel discussion, Justice Bhuyan observed that earlier collegium resolutions included some reasoning, even if not exhaustive. However, the recent lack of any reasoning in collegium resolutions marks a step back from transparency. He asserted that citizens have the right to know about court proceedings and the judges presiding over them.
Senior Advocates Aditya Sondhi and Saurabh Kirpal joined the discussion. Kirpal agreed with Justice Bhuyan, emphasizing the necessity for genuine and objective reasons to be provided for judicial appointments.
More Read
Kirpal argued that transparency acts as a check on the judiciary, preventing arbitrary decisions. “Requiring reasons would act as a check on the collegium itself. It would prevent what others, not I, have described as arbitrary and capricious decisions in rejecting candidates,” he said.
Additionally, Kirpal dismissed the notion of judges’ actions being seen as “the tyranny of the unelected,” stressing the importance of transparency to maintain public confidence.
Senior Advocate Sondhi supported the disclosure of reasons in collegium resolutions but noted that certain factors, like income, might not reflect a lawyer’s competence. He also urged the government to disclose reasons for delaying appointments recommended by the collegium.
