Collegium System in the Indian Judiciary – A Review, Challenges, and the Need for Social Justice
Kranthi Vegesna - MAR 5, 2026
Introduction
The Constitution of India enshrines democracy, justice, and equality as its core values. Yet, many argue that certain parts of the judiciary have not transformed in alignment with these principles. The most debated among them is the Collegium System - the mechanism through which judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed and transferred.
---
What is the Collegium?
The term Collegium comes from Latin, meaning “a council or group of learned persons.”
In India, it refers to the body of senior judges responsible for recommending judicial appointments and transfers. This mechanism does not exist in the original Constitution; it evolved through landmark Supreme Court judgments known as the Judges Cases.
---
How Did the Collegium System Emerge?
First Phase – 1981 (First Judges Case)
In S.P. Gupta vs Union of India (1981), the Supreme Court ruled that the central government had the final authority in judicial appointments.
This was widely criticized as it undermined judicial independence.
Second Phase – 1993 (Second Judges Case)
In Advocates-on-Record Association vs Union of India (1993), the court reversed its earlier view.
It declared that appointments must be decided by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and senior judges-not the executive.
This laid the foundation of the Collegium.
Third Phase – 1998 (Third Judges Case)
Responding to a Presidential Reference, the Supreme Court clarified:
The Supreme Court Collegium consists of the CJI + 4 senior-most judges.
The High Court Collegium consists of the Chief Justice + 2 senior-most judges.
This remains the system in force today.
---
Subsequent Developments
In 2014, the government introduced the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to replace the Collegium.
The NJAC proposed a mixed panel of judges, ministers, and independent members.
However, in 2015, the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional.
Thus, the older Collegium System returned.
Despite this, the system continues to face criticism:
Lack of transparency
Absence of caste, gender, and regional diversity
The perception of “judges appointing judges”
Dominance of elite networks within judiciary
---
Is There Reservation in the Judiciary?
Judicial appointments do not follow reservation policies
The Constitution’s reservation provisions apply only to education, employment, and political representation-not judicial appointments.
Articles 124 and 217 emphasize merit and experience, which has inadvertently resulted in a judiciary dominated by upper castes.
Studies indicate that:
Over 70% of judges appointed to the Supreme Court historically belong to upper-caste communities.
Representation of Dalits, Adivasis, OBCs, and minorities remains minimal.
This fails to reflect India’s vast social diversity.
---
Why Is This a Problem?
The judiciary is the final guardian of democracy. For justice to be meaningful, those who interpret the law must understand diverse social realities.
When the majority of judges come from a single socio-economic background:
Their worldview may be limited.
Lived experiences of marginalized communities may not be fully understood.
For example:
Everyday discrimination against Dalits
Women’s experiences with violence and injustice
Rural, tribal, and backward-class realities
A judiciary lacking social representation struggles to comprehend these lived truths.
---
What Is the Solution?
1. Transparent Appointment Process
Collegium decisions must be made public, including reasons for selection or rejection.
2. Social Diversity Index
Appointments should consider population proportions-Dalits (15%), OBCs (27%), Adivasis (7%), women (50%), etc.- ensuring fair representation.
3. Support in Legal Education
Provide scholarships, mentorships, internships, and coaching support for students from marginalized communities.
4. Reservation in Judicial Services
Extend existing reservation in lower judiciary to promotions leading to the High Courts and Supreme Court.
This creates a pipeline for diverse legal talent to rise.
5. Civil Society Oversight
A neutral oversight body comprising senior advocates, academics, and social representatives should review the process.
---
Equal Justice Requires Equal Representation
The Constitution promises social, economic, and political justice to every citizen.
Justice cannot be truly democratic if those delivering it come predominantly from one social group.
Only when all communities-across caste, gender, region, and religion-find representation in the judiciary will public trust deepen.
This is not merely a demand for caste-based inclusion;
it is a constitutional necessity for a fair, diverse, and democratic judicial system.
---
Conclusion
While the Collegium System protects judicial independence, it falls short on transparency and social justice. For India to realize its constitutional promise of equal justice, judicial appointments must embrace social diversity.
This transformation is not just a reform-it is a historic step toward bringing the judiciary closer to the people.
