An IJS is an idea whose time has come

Context

• The recent fire brigade incident in Delhi, which led to the discovery of half-burnt currency notes at the residence of a High Court judge, has reignited concerns over judicial accountability in India.
• Therefore, it is important to critically examine the larger issue of transparency and integrity within the Indian judiciary, particularly focusing on the Collegium system of selecting judges.
• Moreover, it is crucial to discuss the need for reforms, and the proposal for an Indian Judicial Service (IJS) to address systemic inefficiencies.

A Persistent Concern Over Judicial Accountability

• The fire brigade incident, though shocking, is only one among several recent controversies that have cast a shadow on judicial credibility.
• The Supreme Court’s intervention in staying an insensitive verdict by a High Court judge regarding a minor’s sexual harassment case further exposes the lack of quality control in judicial appointments.
• Additionally, the Supreme Court's response to the Lokpal’s attempt to investigate corruption allegations against a judge underscores the judiciary’s resistance to external oversight.
• These instances collectively reflect a judicial system struggling to maintain accountability while remaining immune to public scrutiny.

Flaws in the Collegium System

• Lack of Transparency
  • The selection and elevation of judges occur behind closed doors, with no formal records, criteria, or explanations made public.
  • The decision-making process lacks objective standards, and the reasons behind selections or rejections are rarely disclosed.
  • This opacity has led to speculation about favouritism, bias, and even corruption within the judicial selection process.
  • The judiciary often declines to share the details of why certain candidates are selected over others, leading to a lack of public confidence.
  • In contrast, other civil service appointments, such as the IAS and IPS, follow a structured and transparent selection process.
• Nepotism and Judicial Dynasties
  • Since appointments are controlled by a small group of senior judges, there is a tendency to favour candidates who belong to influential legal families.
  • This has led to the emergence of judicial dynasties, where judges' relatives are more likely to be selected over equally or more competent candidates from diverse backgrounds.
  • This practice restricts the entry of talented individuals who do not have personal connections within the judiciary.
  • Studies have shown that a significant number of High Court and Supreme Court judges come from families with a history in the judiciary or legal profession.
  • This concentration of power limits opportunities for meritorious candidates from underprivileged backgrounds.
• Absence of Merit-Based Selection Criteria
  • Unlike other professional recruitment processes, where clear eligibility criteria, examinations, and evaluations determine appointments, the Collegium system does not have a standardised, merit-based selection mechanism.
  • There is no written test, interview panel, or structured assessment of a judge’s legal knowledge, ethical standards, or past judgments.
  • As a result, the selection process often becomes subjective, favouring those with personal or professional proximity to the Collegium members.
  • In the civil services, candidates undergo rigorous exams and interviews before being selected.
  • However, in the Collegium system, judges are often chosen based on internal discussions with no formal assessment of their judicial competence, integrity, or decision-making abilities.
• Arbitrary Transfers and Promotions
  • Another major flaw is the opaque system of judicial transfers and promotions.
  • The Collegium decides which judges will be transferred from one High Court to another or elevated to the Supreme Court, but the reasons behind such decisions are rarely disclosed.
  • This lack of accountability has led to suspicions that transfers may be influenced by favouritism, personal biases, or political considerations.
  • In several instances, judges who delivered controversial verdicts or took strong stands against influential figures were transferred to other High Courts without any clear explanation.
  • This raises concerns that transfers are sometimes used as a tool for controlling judges rather than ensuring efficiency in the judiciary.
• Resistance to External Oversight
  • Despite the criticism, the judiciary has strongly resisted attempts to introduce external oversight mechanisms.
  • The rejection of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) in 2015 is a prime example of this resistance.
  • The NJAC was designed to make judicial appointments more accountable by involving representatives from both the judiciary and the executive.
  • However, the Supreme Court struck it down, citing concerns over judicial independence.
  • While independence is crucial, absolute autonomy without checks and balances can lead to an unaccountable system.
  • Even when allegations of corruption or misconduct arise, the judiciary prefers internal inquiries, which are often perceived as biased or ineffective.
  • In contrast, public officials in other branches of government are subject to investigations by independent bodies such as the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and Lokpal.
• Lack of Diversity in the Higher Judiciary
  • The Collegium system has also contributed to a lack of diversity in judicial appointments.
  • Women, Dalits, Adivasis, and candidates from economically weaker backgrounds remain significantly underrepresented in the higher judiciary.
  • This lack of inclusivity affects the credibility of the judiciary and limits perspectives in judicial decision-making.
  • As of recent years, only a small percentage of Supreme Court and High Court judges are women, despite the increasing presence of women in the legal profession.
  • Similarly, representation from marginalized communities remains disproportionately low.

The Case for an Indian Judicial Service (IJS)

• Diversity and Inclusivity: The current judiciary is dominated by a few elite families, with limited representation from marginalized communities and women. A nationwide examination would open doors for deserving candidates from all backgrounds.
• Merit-Based Selection: A structured, competitive recruitment process would ensure that judges are selected based on knowledge, competence, and ethical integrity rather than personal connections.
• Transparent Selection Process: Unlike the closed-door Collegium meetings, the IJS recruitment process would be conducted in a publicly accountable manner, reducing the scope for favouritism.
• Standardized Training: Newly appointed judges could undergo rigorous training in various branches of law, ensuring uniformity in judicial competence across different courts.
• Insulation from Executive Interference: The judiciary can still maintain its independence by formulating selection criteria while entrusting the recruitment process to an external, neutral body like the UPSC.

Conclusion

• The repeated controversies surrounding the judiciary indicate that judicial accountability and selection processes in India need urgent reforms.
• While the Collegium system has allowed the judiciary to remain independent, its lack of transparency has led to serious concerns about favouritism and inefficiency.
• The NJAC, though struck down, could be reconsidered with necessary safeguards to prevent executive overreach.
• More importantly, the establishment of an Indian Judicial Service could be a game-changing reform that ensures a fair, merit-based, and transparent process for judicial appointments.

Q1. What is the main criticism of the Collegium system?
Ans. It lacks transparency, as judicial appointments are made behind closed doors without public disclosure of criteria or reasons.

Q2.How does the Collegium system promote nepotism?
Ans. It favors candidates from influential legal families, leading to the dominance of judicial dynasties.

Q3. Why was the NJAC struck down by the Supreme Court?
Ans. The Court ruled that it compromised judicial independence by allowing executive involvement in judicial appointments.

Q4. How does the Collegium system affect judicial transfers?
Ans. Transfers are often arbitrary, with no clear explanation, leading to suspicions of favoritism or political influence.

Q5. What is a proposed alternative to the Collegium system?
Ans. The Indian Judicial Service (IJS), a merit-based, competitive selection process similar to civil services recruitment. 

Source:The Hindu