Supreme Court judge's 'ant' remark during discussion on judicial transparency

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said that not giving reasons for judicial appointments did a disservice to outstanding judges whose work and achievements deserved to be in the public domain.

In Short

• Withholding reasons risks unconstitutional judges entering judiciary, says Justice Bhuyan
• Justice Bhuyan argues judiciary must answer 'who watches the watchmen' question
• Justice Bhuyan urges transparency in collegium appointments

Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has called for greater transparency in the collegium system, arguing that withholding reasons for judicial appointments not only denies deserving judges due recognition but could also allow individuals who make "wholly unconstitutional" remarks to enter the judiciary.

Speaking during a panel discussion to mark the launch of the Judicial Transparency Index by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, Justice Bhuyan said the collegium should explain the reasons behind its recommendations and questioned why judicial appointments should be insulated from informed public debate.

"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 and contrary to the values of the Constitution," he said during the panel discussion.

Justice Bhuyan said that not giving reasons for judicial appointments did a disservice to outstanding judges whose work and achievements deserved to be in the public domain.

He argued that greater disclosure and discussion around appointments could help prevent the elevation of individuals whose views may be at odds with constitutional values.

"To prevent the elevation of such individuals, there should be discussion. There should be reasons explaining what happened. What harm is caused if there is informed public debate on such decisions?" Justice Bhuyan said.

'NEED GREATER TRANSPARENCY IN APPOINTMENTS'

Separately, in his address to the gathering, Justice Bhuyan made a broader case for greater transparency in the process of appointing and transferring judges.

He pointed out that deliberations over the elevation and transfer of judges remain confidential, reasons for rejecting or deferring recommendations are rarely disclosed in full, and the criteria applied by the collegium are not codified in any publicly accessible document.

Justice Bhuyan also drew attention to what he described as a recent shift in Supreme Court collegium statements.

"I have seen that the last three statements of the Supreme Court collegium do not contain any reason at all for recommending elevation as opposed to the earlier statements where each of the recommendations were supported by some reason," he said.

Justice Bhuyan described this as a "reflexive gap", pointing to the contrast between a judiciary that has embraced greater openness in its adjudicative role and one that remains more guarded about its own institutional processes.

"Deliberations over the elevation and transfer of judges remain confidential; reasons for rejecting or deferring a recommendation are rarely disclosed in full; and the criteria applied are not codified in any publicly accessible instrument comparable to the Memorandum of Procedure's own limited disclosure," he said.

Justice Bhuyan also raised the broader question of accountability within the judiciary.

"Every legal system that claims to administer justice rather than merely dispense power must answer an old and uncomfortable question: who watches the watchmen?" he said.

WHY THE COLLEGIUM SYSTEM HAS BEEN CONTROVERSIAL

The Supreme Court collegium system remains one of the most debated aspects of India's judiciary.

Under the system, the Chief Justice of India and a group of senior Supreme Court judges recommend appointments and transfers in the higher judiciary. The government can seek reconsideration of a recommendation, but its role in the process is limited.

Critics have long argued that the collegium lacks transparency, with little public information available on why particular candidates are selected, rejected or deferred. Questions have also been raised over the absence of clearly codified and publicly accessible criteria governing appointments.

The judiciary, however, has consistently defended the system as necessary to protect judicial independence and insulate appointments from executive interference.

The issue has also repeatedly led to friction between the judiciary and the government. Parliament sought to replace the collegium with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), but the Supreme Court struck down the law in 2015, holding that it undermined judicial independence.

Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud had also defended the collegium system in 2024, saying efforts were being made to improve transparency in the appointment process.

In an interview with PTI, he said it was easy to criticise the system, but maintained that the collegium made every effort to ensure that the required process of consultation was followed before a judge was appointed.

- Ends