ELEGIUM CRACKS

The contentious selection system is yet again facing the test of time. As CJI UU Lalit tries to form a consensus on judges' appointments, creases and crevices are showing up. Is the system well geared to handle judiciary's ever-evolving needs?

-  Sanjay Raman Sinha

THE Supreme Court Collegium headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) UU Lalit is in the throes of a controversy. In an unprecedented move to appoint four new judges at the top court, the CJI has circulated a memo amongst his four fellow judges to give in writing their views for appointment of the proposed candidates.

It is reported that two members of the Supreme Court Collegium have objected to a letter sent by the CJI, seeking their views to appoint four judges to the apex court. The CJI had asked for consent of judges since the Collegium meeting scheduled for September 30 couldn't be held due to unavailability of one of the judges.

The names recommended by the CJI to the four other members of the Collegium are Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Ravi Shankar Jha, Patna High Court Chief Justice Sanjay Karol, Manipur High Court Chief Justice PV Sanjay Kumar and Senior Advocate KV Viswanathan. As per the tradition, the deliberations for appointments is done in privacy and the minutes of meetings are never divulged. However, judges may not have been putting their views in writing a strong reason for judges to refrain from accepting the CJI's request. The reported inner skirmish has brought to the fore the informal nature of Collegium functioning.

In fact, lack of transparency in appointment and transfer matters and lack of formal or objective norms for appointments and transfers are other major criticisms against the Collegium system. Presently, there is no process to assess if a judge who is recommended by the Collegium has any conflict of interests. The criteria of judges' appointments and transfers is also cloaked in secrecy. This gives space to allegations of partiality and play of vested interests.