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.
It asks 3 things — 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 'consultation' with the CJI and judges; three judgments turned it into judicial primacy, the collegium, a word the Constitution never uses.
Cover
- Evolution: S. P. Gupta (1981) executive primacy; Second Judges case (1993) CJI with two senior judges; Third Judges case (1998) five-member collegium.
- NJAC: 99th Amendment and NJAC Act struck down on 16 October 2015; the Memorandum of Procedure remains contested.
- India's merits: insulation from patronage, peer assessment; flaws: opacity, delays, a narrow base (32 SC, 17 ST, 103 OBC among 841 HC judges, 2018 to Nov 2025).
- USA: nomination with the Senate's 'Advice and Consent' and tenure 'during good Behaviour'; flaw: politicisation, as with Merrick Garland in 2016.
- Comparison table; verdict: a reformed collegium with criteria, secretariat and time-limits; UK commission selects 'solely on merit' and encourages diversity.
Close with · SDG target 16.7's call for responsive, inclusive and representative decision-making as the test for a transparent, diverse collegium.
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”
- US Constitution, Article II: the President nominates and, with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, appoints Supreme Court judges.The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription — US National Archives ↗“by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court”
- US Constitution, Article III: federal judges hold office during good Behaviour, that is, life tenure.The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription — US National Archives ↗“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”
- Law Minister's written reply in the Rajya Sabha (Winter Session 2025): of 841 High Court judges appointed from 2018 to 28 November 2025, 32 are SC, 17 ST, 103 OBC and 46 from minorities.Department of Justice, Rajya Sabha replies, Winter Session 2025 (Law Minister's written reply on High Court appointments) ↗“out of 841 Judges . appointed from 2018 till 28.11.2025, 32 belong to SC category”
- The UK's Judicial Appointments Commission has statutory duties to select solely on merit, select people of good character and encourage diversity.About us — Judicial Appointments Commission (UK) ↗“select candidates solely on merit select only people of ‘good character’ have regard to the need to encourage diversity in the range of persons avai”
- SDG target 16.7: ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.Goal 16 — UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Sustainable Development ↗“Target 16.7 Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2025, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 346words · Minimalist IAS
Article 124(2) asks the President to appoint Supreme Court judges after 'consultation' with the Chief Justice and other judges. Three judgments turned that consultation into judicial primacy: the collegium, a word the Constitution never uses.
Evolution of the collegium
- First Judges case (S. P. Gupta, 1981): consultation did not mean concurrence; the executive had primacy.
- Second Judges case (1993): the CJI's opinion, formed with the two senior-most judges, became binding.
- Third Judges case (1998): on a Presidential reference, the collegium became the CJI and four senior-most judges.
- NJAC episode: the 99th Amendment and NJAC Act (2014) were struck down on 16 October 2015; the revised Memorandum of Procedure remains contested.
India's collegium: advantages and disadvantages
- Insulation: shields appointments from political patronage and protects independence, part of the basic structure.
- Peer assessment: judges judge the competence of those they have watched at the Bar and on the Bench.
- Opacity: no published criteria or reasons, allegations of favouritism, and government delays in clearing names.
- Narrow base: of 841 High Court judges appointed from 2018 to November 2025, only 32 were SC, 17 ST and 103 OBC (Law Minister, Rajya Sabha, Winter Session 2025).
The US system: advantages and disadvantages
- Democratic legitimacy: the President appoints 'by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate' (Article II), after public hearings.
- Life tenure: judges hold office 'during good Behaviour', securing independence after appointment.
- Politicisation: nominees are screened for ideology; in 2016 the Senate refused even a hearing to Merrick Garland.
| Aspect | India: collegium | USA: nomination |
|---|---|---|
| Who chooses | Senior judges | President with Senate |
| Strength | Insulated from politics | Open public scrutiny |
| Weakness | Opaque, narrow base | Partisan confirmation fights |
Verdict and way forward
- Neither is ideal: India insulates but does not explain; the US explains but politicises.
- Reformed collegium: published criteria, a permanent secretariat, time-limits for the government and wider consultation.
- UK lesson: its Judicial Appointments Commission must 'select candidates solely on merit' and encourage diversity among applicants.
A transparent, diverse collegium would meet SDG target 16.7, 'responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels', without surrendering judicial primacy to the executive.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 3 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
