Discuss the evolution of collegium system in India. Critically examine the advantages and disadvantages of the system of appointment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India and that of the USA.
Approach · directive: “discuss / critically examine”
What it asks · Trace how the collegium emerged from judicial interpretation of Article 124, then weigh the merits and flaws of India's system against the US model of nomination and Senate confirmation.
The question has 3 parts — answer each
- Discuss: the evolution of the collegium system in India
- Critically examine: the advantages and disadvantages of India's collegium system of appointing Supreme Court judges
- Critically examine: the advantages and disadvantages of the US system, with a reasoned verdict
Open with · Article 124(2) requires the President to consult the CJI and judges in appointing Supreme Court judges; judicial interpretation turned 'consultation' into judicial primacy.
Cover
- Evolution: S. P. Gupta (1981) gave executive primacy; Second Judges case (1993) gave primacy to the CJI with senior judges; Third Judges case (1998) fixed a five-member collegium.
- 99th Amendment and NJAC Act (2014) were struck down in 2015; the revised Memorandum of Procedure remains contested.
- India's advantages: insulation from political patronage; peers judge competence; protects judicial independence as part of the basic structure.
- India's disadvantages: opacity, no published criteria or reasons, alleged nepotism, government delays on names, poor diversity of women and backward classes.
- USA: President nominates, Senate confirms after public hearings; life tenure — democratic legitimacy and transparency.
- US drawbacks: deep politicisation and ideological selection; confirmation battles (Garland not considered in 2016); partisan perception of the Court.
- Middle path: transparent collegium with criteria, a secretariat, time-limits for government, and wider consultation — as in the UK's Judicial Appointments Commission.
Close with · Neither model is ideal; India needs a collegium that keeps judicial primacy but earns public trust through transparency and diversity.
Add value (verified)
- The official text records that the 99th Amendment's changes to Article 124 (NJAC) were struck down on 16 October 2015. The Constitution of India (Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, as on 1 May 2024) — Article 124, footnote ↗“This amendment has been struck down by the Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another Vs. Union of India in its judgment dated 16-10-2015”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2025, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 307 words (UPSC limit 250) · Minimalist IAS
Article 124(2) requires the President to appoint Supreme Court judges after consulting the Chief Justice and such judges as he thinks fit. Judicial interpretation turned this 'consultation' into judicial primacy — the collegium.
Evolution of the collegium
- First Judges case (S. P. Gupta, 1981): 'consultation' did not mean concurrence; the executive had the last word.
- Second Judges case (1993): consultation meant concurrence; the CJI's opinion, formed with the two senior-most judges, became binding.
- Third Judges case (1998): on a Presidential reference, the collegium was enlarged to the CJI and four senior-most judges, with written opinions.
- 99th Amendment and NJAC Act (2014) proposed a six-member commission with the Law Minister and two eminent persons; struck down in 2015 as violating judicial independence. A revised Memorandum of Procedure remains unsettled.
India's collegium: strengths and flaws
- Strengths: insulation from political patronage; peers assess competence; protects independence, which is part of the basic structure.
- Flaws: opacity, no published criteria or reasons, allegations of favouritism, government delays in clearing names, and poor representation of women and backward classes.
The US system: strengths and flaws
- Strengths: the President nominates and the Senate confirms after public hearings, giving democratic legitimacy and transparency; life tenure secures independence after appointment.
- Flaws: deep politicisation and ideological screening; confirmation battles — the Senate refused even a hearing to Merrick Garland in 2016; the Court is perceived along partisan lines.
Verdict
- Neither model is ideal: India insulates but does not explain; the US explains but politicises. A middle path — a transparent collegium with published criteria, a permanent secretariat, time-limits for the government and wider consultation, on the lines of the UK's Judicial Appointments Commission — keeps judicial primacy while earning public trust.
Judicial independence is secured not by secrecy but by legitimacy; a collegium that is transparent and diverse would answer its critics without surrendering to the executive.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.