SC Judge Bhuyan: Citizens Have a Right to Know How Judges Are Chosen
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has expressed concern over the lack of transparency in the collegium system that decides the appointment, elevation and transfer of judges. Speaking at the launch of a report on judicial transparency on Saturday, he said the last three collegium resolutions contained no reasons whatsoever. "Is this a step back from the principle of transparency?" he asked.
Justice Bhuyan highlighted that withholding reasons can create space for unsuitable individuals to enter the judiciary. "By withholding reasons, we also create space for individuals to enter the judiciary who may later describe groups of people as 'ants' and make other remarks that are wholly unconstitutional," he said. He did not name anyone, but the remark was understood to reference a 2024 comment by an Allahabad High Court judge. He stressed that to prevent such entries, "there should be some discussion, there should be some reasons given".
The collegium system, consisting of the Chief Justice of India and senior Supreme Court judges, handles judicial appointments. Deliberations on elevation and transfer of judges largely remain confidential, and reasons for rejecting or deferring a recommendation are rarely disclosed in full. The criteria used are not codified in any publicly available document, Justice Bhuyan noted.
"Citizens have a right to know what is happening in the courts. They have a right to know who would be their judges. They have a right to know judgments. These should be in the public domain," he underlined. He also requested the JALTI team to examine the opacity of the collegium system in future assessments.
The report, titled "Judicial Transparency Index: Assessing Disclosure of Information by the Supreme Court and the High Courts," was prepared by the Justice, Access and Lowering Delays in India (JALTI) Initiative at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. It is the first systematic study assessing transparency practices across India's higher judiciary, covering judicial processes, institutional governance and administration, and personnel.
Key findings from the report reveal that only five high courts have published their budget on their websites for FY 2025-26, and none has published criteria governing case allocation. Of the 813 judges in the higher judiciary, only 87 have publicly disclosed their assets. Only two high courts publish disciplinary sanction orders for district judicial officers.
Referring to the appointment of senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal, Justice Bhuyan said the collegium had reiterated its recommendation with recorded reasons. He found the reasons convincing, but noted that despite more than three and a half years passing, no appointment had been made.
The report notes that while some individual disclosure measures have emerged, they have not translated into a holistic approach, according to a release from Vidhi. The findings highlight that the level of judicial transparency varies significantly across courts.
