Salve highlighted issues within the collegium system, which has been the framework for judicial appointments since 1993. The process, governed by senior judges of the Supreme Court, selects judges for the higher judiciary. Critics, including Salve, argue that the system lacks transparency, operates without a formal mechanism for oversight, and often sidelines considerations of merit and diversity. These concerns have gained traction over the years, with multiple voices across the legal and political spectrum calling for reforms.
The debate has intensified amid allegations of favoritism and opaque decision-making within the collegium. Salve pointed out that the absence of objective criteria in appointments has led to perceptions of bias, undermining public trust in the judiciary. He emphasized that reforming this process is crucial for maintaining judicial integrity and ensuring the system is immune to external influences.
Calls for reform are not new but have gained renewed urgency with evolving expectations of judicial accountability. Legal experts argue that the collegium system’s lack of institutional transparency makes it susceptible to criticism, particularly when decisions on appointments or transfers are perceived as arbitrary. The judiciary, which often champions transparency and accountability in governance, finds itself under scrutiny for not adhering to the same principles in its internal operations.
Efforts to address these concerns have met with resistance. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, passed by Parliament in 2014, sought to replace the collegium system with a body comprising representatives from the judiciary, legislature, and civil society. However, the Supreme Court struck down the act in 2015, citing threats to judicial independence. This decision, while reinforcing the judiciary’s autonomy, also reignited debates about the need for checks and balances in the appointment process.
Salve underscored the need for a balanced approach that safeguards judicial independence while introducing mechanisms for accountability. He argued that a more inclusive and structured framework could help eliminate allegations of nepotism and ensure merit-based appointments. Proposals for reform include incorporating wider consultations, setting clear eligibility criteria, and increasing the diversity of the judiciary to better reflect the country's socio-political fabric.
The issue of diversity remains a pressing concern, with critics noting the underrepresentation of women, marginalized communities, and regional voices in higher judiciary appointments. Despite incremental progress, the judiciary has faced criticism for failing to mirror the diversity of the society it serves. Salve suggested that a more transparent system could address these disparities and enhance the judiciary’s credibility.
The broader implications of judicial appointments on governance and democracy cannot be overstated. A robust and independent judiciary is considered the cornerstone of a functioning democracy, and its ability to command public confidence hinges on the perception of fairness and impartiality. Legal scholars emphasize that addressing flaws in the appointment process is essential for preserving the judiciary’s role as a neutral arbiter in disputes involving the government, private entities, and individual rights.
Salve’s comments also brought into focus the evolving relationship between the judiciary and the executive. Over the years, tensions have surfaced over judicial appointments, with successive governments expressing concerns about the collegium’s functioning. While the judiciary has defended its autonomy as a bulwark against political interference, critics argue that complete insulation from external input has created an accountability vacuum.
The global context of judicial appointment systems offers valuable insights. Many democracies employ a combination of judicial and non-judicial members in appointment commissions to strike a balance between independence and accountability. For instance, countries like the United Kingdom and South Africa have adopted transparent and consultative processes, which are often cited as models for reform.
Salve’s remarks have sparked discussions within the legal fraternity and beyond. While some view his critique as a call to action for necessary reforms, others caution against undermining the judiciary’s independence through external interventions. The challenge lies in crafting a solution that addresses valid concerns without compromising the judiciary’s ability to function without fear or favor.
The timing of these debates is significant, as the judiciary continues to handle matters of national importance. High-profile cases and contentious issues have underscored the importance of a credible and impartial judiciary. Stakeholders argue that reforms in the appointment process could help fortify the judiciary’s role as a trusted institution.