Collegium system lacks guidelines for appointment: Justice Chelameswar

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday rejected the charge of the Centre that under the Collegium system of appointments, judges were appointing judges with the executive having no role in the selection process.

Justice Khehar pointed out that out of all appointments made by the Collegium since 1993 only three or four would not be a proper appointment and for that the entire system cannot be blamed.

He noted that the government accepted the Collegium system and had formulated the Memorandum of Procedure for judges appointments and at each stage, from recommendation till appointment, the executive had an equal role in the selection process.

In his judgment, Justice Lokur endorsed the views of Justice Khehar and said, “The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution as well as a responsible judge from the House of Lords were of the opinion that the procedure (collegium system) for appointment of judges, as laid down in the Second Judges case and the Third Judges case, broadly serves the purpose of maintaining the independence of the judiciary and providing a suitable method for appointment of judges of the superior Courts. This is not to say that the ‘collegium system’ is perfect. Hardly so.”

Justice Lokur said “During the course of hearing, some critical comments were made with regard to the appointment of some judges to this Court, which would not have been possible were it not for the failure of the collegium system. Even the petitioners were critical of the Collegium system. However, I must express my anguish at the manner in which an ‘attack’ was launched by some counsel appearing for the respondents. It was vitriolic at times, lacking discretion and wholly unnecessary. Denigrating judges is the easiest thing to do – they cannot fight back – and the surest way to ensure that the judiciary loses its independence and the people lose confidence in the judiciary, which is hardly advisable.”

Justice J. Chelameswar, who gave a dissenting judgment upholding the constitutional amendment in favour of NJAC, slammed the Collegium system of appointments saying it lacked guidelines for selection of candidates for judges appointments.

He said, “Even prior to the constitutional amendment, there were no guidelines for the President and the CJI to follow. If in practice, occasional personal preferences outweighed concerns of public interest resulting in undesirable appointments. It is not because of constitutional silence in this area, but because of shortcomings in the ethical standards of the participants in the selection process.”

He said, “After the constitutional amendment, the obligation is unvaried. The only change is in the composition of the players to whom the task is entrusted and the mode of performing the task is altered with a view to achieve greater degree of transparency.