NEW DELHI, India — Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud recently addressed some of the misconceptions surrounding the country’s collegium system for appointing judges, during his speech at NDTV’s Samvidhan@75 conclave. This came at a time when the system itself, responsible for nominating judges to both the Supreme Court and High Courts, was subjected to examination by the central government last year.
Justice Chandrachud emphasized the layered and shared responsibility in the judiciary’s nominations process, noting that it is not solely within the purview of the Supreme Court to finalize such appointments. The approach includes various tiers of the state, crossing beyond the confines of central and state governments, to involve inputs from intelligence agencies, chief ministers, and governors, thus incorporating a wide federal perspective.
Further elaborating on the appointment criteria, he highlighted that recommendations do not solely depend on seniority; integrity, regional representation, and diversity also play crucial roles in the selection process. This multifaceted consideration ensures a judiciary that mirrors the nation’s diverse demographic and geographical attributes.
Addressing concerns about the opacity of the process, Chandrachud pointed out the potential risks of making all deliberations public. Complete transparency, he argued, could jeopardize the function and impartiality of judges by subjecting their appointment rationales to public scrutiny and potentially diminishing the professional privacy needed for fair judicial responsibilities.
“The goal of achieving transparency must not overshadow the need for privacy in adjudicative roles,” Justice Chandrachud stated, stressing the importance of maintaining a balance between transparency and the necessary secrecy that keeps the judiciary’s candor intact.
He also revealed that Supreme Court judges with previous ties to recommending high courts are often consulted, ensuring that insights from experienced justices contribute to informed decisions.
Justice Chandrachud further discussed the doctrine of the separation of powers among the executive, judiciary, and legislature. Although he acknowledged the occasional strains on this relationship, he underscored the evolving need for the judiciary to intervene in policy gaps or lax law enforcement situations where fundamental rights are at stake.
Critically, he noted the shift in traditional separation of powers with the increasing involvement of regulatory agencies in dispute resolutions, particularly in specialized sectors. This change reflects modern complexities, adapting the age-old democratic principles to contemporary realities.
Justice DY Chandrachud, who served as the Chief Justice of India until November 2024, concluded by affirming that despite the changing dynamics brought about by modern challenges, the foundational principle of separation of power remains robust and integral to India’s democratic fabric.
This article was automatically generated by OpenAI. Details including names, facts, and circumstances may be fabricated or inaccurate. For corrections or removal requests, please email contact@publiclawlibrary.org.