Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has questioned the growing lack of transparency in the Supreme Court Collegium, noting that recent resolutions contain no reasons for judicial appointments or transfers.
- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Questions Collegium’s Recent Functioning
- Lack of Reasons Harms Both Judiciary and Public Confidence
- Recent Collegium Resolutions Show Growing Opacity
- Saurabh Kirpal’s Appointment Cited as Example
- Panellists Call for Objective and Meaningful Reasons
- Collegium System Continues to Face Transparency Debate
- Key Takeaways
- Also Read
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Questions Collegium’s Recent Functioning
Supreme Court Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has expressed concern over what he described as a return to opacity in the functioning of the Supreme Court Collegium, observing that the absence of recorded reasons in recent resolutions weakens transparency in the judicial appointments process.
The remarks were made during the launch of The Judicial Transparency Index, a report prepared by the JALDI initiative of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, where Justice Bhuyan delivered the keynote address and later participated in a panel discussion.
Lack of Reasons Harms Both Judiciary and Public Confidence
Justice Bhuyan observed that recording reasons for judicial appointments serves multiple institutional purposes. According to him, the absence of reasons not only deprives deserving judges of public recognition for their merit but also reduces accountability in the appointment process.
He cautioned that withholding reasons may allow unsuitable candidates to enter the higher judiciary without meaningful public scrutiny. Referring to controversial judicial remarks made in the past, he suggested that greater transparency could strengthen public confidence in the appointment system.
The judge also questioned whether informed public discussion on judicial appointments would truly harm the institution.
Recent Collegium Resolutions Show Growing Opacity
Comparing the current practice with earlier Collegium resolutions, Justice Bhuyan noted that previous recommendations generally included at least brief explanations supporting appointments.
He observed that the last three Collegium resolutions, however, contained no reasons whatsoever, raising concerns that the institution may be moving away from its gradual shift towards greater transparency.
According to him, citizens have a legitimate interest in understanding how judges are selected, elevated and transferred within the higher judiciary.
Saurabh Kirpal’s Appointment Cited as Example
Justice Bhuyan referred to the prolonged delay in the appointment of Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal despite repeated recommendations by the Supreme Court Collegium.
He stated that the reasons recorded by the Collegium in support of Kirpal’s appointment were convincing and demonstrated why providing reasons can improve public understanding of institutional decisions.
The judge suggested that transparent reasoning strengthens confidence in the appointment process rather than weakening it.
Panellists Call for Objective and Meaningful Reasons
Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal, who participated in the discussion, supported the idea of recording detailed and objective reasons for judicial appointments.
He argued that requiring the Collegium to explain its decisions would promote fairness, reduce perceptions of arbitrariness and provide greater institutional accountability.
Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi also favoured greater transparency but observed that certain sensitive factors should remain confidential where disclosure could unfairly affect advocates who are not selected.
He further remarked that transparency should extend beyond the judiciary, urging the executive to explain prolonged delays in acting upon Collegium recommendations.
Collegium System Continues to Face Transparency Debate
The Collegium system governs the appointment and transfer of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts and has long attracted criticism over the confidentiality of its decision-making process.
Although the judiciary has gradually begun publishing Collegium resolutions, questions continue to be raised regarding the absence of clearly defined selection criteria and the limited disclosure of reasons behind appointments, transfers and rejections.
Justice Bhuyan’s remarks have once again brought the issue of judicial transparency into focus, highlighting the continuing debate over balancing institutional independence with public accountability.
Key Takeaways
- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan questioned the lack of reasons in recent Collegium resolutions.
- He said transparency benefits deserving candidates and strengthens public confidence.
- The judge noted that the last three Collegium resolutions contained no recorded reasons.
- Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal supported objective and detailed reasoning in appointments.
- Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi called for greater transparency from both the judiciary and the executive.
- The discussion has renewed debate over reforms in the Collegium system.
Also Read
- Supreme Court Holds Section 498A Can Apply to Live-in Relationships Similar to Marriage
- Supreme Court Clarifies Property Bought in Wife’s Name Belongs Exclusively to Her
