Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Calls for Greater Transparency in Collegium System, Warns Secrecy Undermines Public Trust

August 1, 2026 : The Supreme Court’s Collegium system came under sharp scrutiny on Saturday after Supreme Court Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed serious concerns over the growing lack of transparency in the process of judicial appointments. Speaking at the launch of the Judicial Transparency Index: Assessing Disclosure of Information by the Supreme Court and the High Courts, released by Vidhi’s JALDI initiative, Justice Bhuyan cautioned that withholding reasons for judicial appointments and rejections weakens public confidence, harms deserving candidates, and may allow unsuitable individuals to enter the higher judiciary.

Justice Bhuyan observed that the Collegium had earlier followed the practice of recording reasons, even if they were brief, while recommending judges for appointment. However, he noted that the last three Collegium resolutions were issued without disclosing any reasons, describing this as a step backwards from the principles of transparency and accountability.

He stressed that the absence of reasoned decisions does a disservice to judges who genuinely deserve elevation while reducing public confidence in the fairness of the appointment process. According to him, transparency is essential not only for institutional credibility but also for protecting the constitutional values that the judiciary is expected to uphold.

Referring to controversial remarks made by a former Allahabad High Court judge during a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) event in 2024, Justice Bhuyan said that statements comparing religious communities in a derogatory manner were inconsistent with constitutional principles. He emphasized that such incidents highlight the need for rigorous scrutiny during the judicial selection process to ensure that only candidates committed to constitutional values are elevated to constitutional courts.

Justice Bhuyan also questioned the increasing secrecy surrounding the Collegium’s functioning. He urged legal researchers to closely examine the opacity of the appointment system, pointing out that deliberations regarding appointments and transfers remain confidential, reasons for rejecting or deferring names are rarely disclosed, and there is no publicly available framework setting out the criteria governing such decisions.

He maintained that citizens have a legitimate right to know how judges are selected and who is appointed to constitutional courts. According to him, public discussion on judicial appointments should be encouraged rather than viewed with apprehension.

During his address, Justice Bhuyan also referred to the Collegium’s recommendation for Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal’s appointment as a judge of the Delhi High Court. He noted that despite the Collegium reiterating its recommendation, the Central Government has not acted upon it. Justice Bhuyan said that the detailed reasoning provided by the Collegium in Kirpal’s case strengthened public confidence and demonstrated why reasoned decisions are important.

The panel discussion accompanying the event featured Senior Advocates Saurabh Kirpal and Aditya Sondhi, both of whom strongly supported greater transparency in judicial appointments.

Saurabh Kirpal argued that the Collegium should provide genuine, objective, and meaningful reasons while recommending candidates instead of relying on standard or formulaic observations. He said such disclosures would help the legal fraternity understand why one candidate was preferred over another and would serve as an institutional safeguard against arbitrary decision-making. Kirpal further observed that while elected governments derive legitimacy from the democratic process, the judiciary earns its legitimacy through public confidence, making transparency indispensable to judicial independence.

Aditya Sondhi also endorsed greater disclosure of reasons but observed that certain highly sensitive personal information, such as a candidate’s income, may not always require public disclosure, particularly where advocates are engaged in legal aid or civil rights work. At the same time, he questioned the executive’s role in delaying judicial appointments, asking why the government continues to keep Collegium recommendations pending for years, even after they have been reiterated by the Supreme Court.

Justice Bhuyan’s remarks come at a time when debates over judicial accountability, transparency, and the functioning of the Collegium system continue to intensify. His observations have renewed calls for a more open and reasoned judicial appointments process to strengthen public trust in India’s constitutional courts.