‘By Not Giving Reasons, Collegium Is Doing Disservice To Judges Doing Good Work’: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Calls For Greater Transparency
Supreme Court Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has strongly criticized the growing opacity in the Supreme Court Collegium system, saying that the failure to disclose reasons behind judicial appointments and elevations is doing a “disservice to judges doing good work” and undermining public confidence in the judiciary. His remarks have renewed the debate on transparency and accountability in the judicial appointments process.
Delivering the keynote address at the launch of a report by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy’s JALDI initiative, Justice Bhuyan observed that citizens have a fundamental right to know who is being appointed to the higher judiciary and why. He stressed that judicial institutions cannot remain insulated from public scrutiny, particularly when appointments to constitutional courts have a direct bearing on the administration of justice.
Justice Bhuyan noted that the Supreme Court Collegium’s recent resolutions have omitted reasons altogether while recommending judges for appointment or elevation. Recalling earlier Collegium practices, particularly during the tenure of former Chief Justice U.U. Lalit, he said resolutions then contained reasoned explanations that enabled lawyers, litigants and the public to understand the basis of judicial selections. The shift away from such disclosures, he suggested, represents a setback for institutional transparency.
According to Justice Bhuyan, withholding reasons harms deserving judges whose merit, integrity and judicial performance deserve public recognition. At the same time, the absence of transparent criteria creates uncertainty about why some candidates are elevated while others are overlooked, leaving room for speculation and diminishing confidence in the appointment process.
He further warned that opacity in the Collegium system could inadvertently facilitate the elevation of individuals whose constitutional values may be questionable. Referring to instances where judges have made remarks inconsistent with constitutional principles, Justice Bhuyan argued that greater deliberation and public reasoning would help ensure that only candidates committed to constitutional morality are entrusted with higher judicial office.
Emphasizing the principle of accountability, Justice Bhuyan stated that transparency should not be viewed as a threat to judicial independence. Instead, he argued that reasoned Collegium decisions would strengthen the credibility of the judiciary by demonstrating that appointments are based on objective standards of merit, competence and integrity rather than undisclosed considerations. “Citizens have a right to know what is happening in the courts, to know who their judges are,” he remarked, underscoring the judiciary’s obligation to remain accountable to the public it serves.
The Collegium system, under which the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most Supreme Court judges recommend appointments and transfers of judges, has long faced criticism for functioning largely behind closed doors. Although resolutions are published on the Supreme Court’s website, legal experts have repeatedly argued that many decisions continue to lack sufficient reasoning, particularly in cases involving non-elevation, transfers or withdrawal of recommendations.
Justice Bhuyan’s observations are significant because they come from a sitting Supreme Court judge and reflect an emerging demand from within the judiciary itself for greater openness in judicial appointments. His comments are expected to intensify discussions among the Bar, the Bench and policymakers on balancing judicial independence with transparency, while preserving public trust in one of India’s most important constitutional institutions.
