Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Questions Supreme Court Collegium’s Opacity, Calls for Transparent Judicial Appointments
Supreme Court Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has publicly questioned the lack of transparency in the Supreme Court Collegium system, stating that the continued practice of withholding reasons for judicial appointments and transfers does a disservice to deserving judges and weakens public confidence in the judiciary. His remarks have reignited the long-running debate over reforming India’s judicial appointment process.
Speaking at the launch of a report by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy’s JALDI initiative, Justice Bhuyan said that when the Collegium recommends the appointment, elevation or transfer of judges without explaining its reasons, it deprives the legal fraternity and the public of transparency. According to him, judicial institutions should not hesitate to provide reasoned decisions, particularly in matters that directly affect the composition of the higher judiciary.
Justice Bhuyan observed that the absence of recorded reasons can also harm judges who possess impeccable integrity and merit but whose names are either ignored or rejected without explanation. At the same time, he cautioned that secrecy in the selection process may allow unsuitable candidates to enter the higher judiciary, potentially affecting the quality of judicial decision-making and public trust in constitutional institutions.
Referring to the principle of accountability, the Supreme Court judge emphasized that transparency should not be viewed as a threat to judicial independence. Instead, he argued that greater openness would strengthen the credibility of the institution while reassuring citizens that appointments are based on objective standards rather than undisclosed considerations.
The Collegium system, under which the Chief Justice of India and senior Supreme Court judges recommend appointments and transfers of judges, has long attracted criticism for its confidential functioning. Although the Collegium now publishes brief resolutions, legal experts have frequently argued that many decisions continue to lack detailed reasoning, especially where recommendations are deferred, withdrawn or modified.
Justice Bhuyan’s comments come at a time when discussions over judicial accountability, institutional independence and reforms to the appointment process have gained renewed prominence. His observations are significant because they originate from a sitting Supreme Court judge and reflect growing calls from within the judiciary itself for a more transparent and reasoned appointment mechanism.
The remarks are expected to fuel fresh debate among legal scholars, members of the Bar and policymakers over whether the Collegium should provide comprehensive reasons for its recommendations while preserving the judiciary’s independence from executive interference. As the conversation on judicial reforms continues, Justice Bhuyan’s intervention has added considerable weight to demands for greater openness in one of India’s most influential constitutional institutions.
