Context: Supreme Court Collegium, led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi,

recommended the names of two judges to the court and rejected the government’s
disapproval of the elevation of two others.

Background:

Collegium refused the government’s request to reconsider its April 12

recommendation to elevate Jharkhand High Court and Gauhati High Court Chief
Justices Aniruddha Bose and A.S. Bopanna as Supreme Court judges.

The Collegium said their names were recommended after all parameters were
considered. The Collegium said there was no reason to agree with the government
as there was nothing adverse found in the two judges’ conduct, competence or
integrity. Now, the government is bound to appoint Justices Bose and Bopanna to
the court.

 
What is the Collegium System?

The Collegium System is a system under which appointments/elevation of

judges/lawyers to Supreme Court and transfers of judges of High Courts and Apex
Court are decided by a forum of the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most
judges of the Supreme Court.’ There is no mention of the Collegium either in the
original Constitution of India or in successive amendments.

The recommendations of the Collegium are binding on the Central Government; if

the Collegium sends the names of the judges/lawyers to the government for the
second time.

How Collegium System Works?

  The Collegium sends the recommendations of the names of lawyers or judges to the
Central Government. Similarly, the Central Government also sends some of its
proposed names to the Collegium. The Central Government does the fact checking
and investigate the names and resends the file to the Collegium.
 Collegium considers the names or suggestions made by the Central Government
and resends the file to the government for final approval. If the Collegium resends
the same name again then the government has to give its assent to the names. But
time limit is not fixed to reply. This is the reason that appointment of judges takes a
long time.

The collegium system for judicial appointment, consisting of a closed group of four senior
most supreme court judge and the CJI himself, evolved after three judge case in 90s. It
evolved on fundamental of judicial independence but free judiciary from any political
interventions.

The collegium system has been despised by many because:

1) It completely circumvents other two pillar of democracy.
2) Favoritism shown by certain judges.
3) Completely opaque process of selection.
4) Delayed procedure with most of young talents missing the boat.
5) It goes against constitution which provided only consultation role to CJI while President
appointing the judge.

Inspite of these drawbacks, the collegium system has given best of the judges in supreme
court which is the single most important fact that can over rule any and all snags.
Other merits in this system are:
1) Keeps away politicization of judiciary.
2) Supreme court retains autonomy.
3) Senior judges know better about the talents in judiciary than executive and legislative.
4) With increasing awareness and modernization, corruption in judiciary system in form of
either favoritism/morality or monetary can be curbed ex- recent case of sexual assault on a
high court judge was well dealt.

No system is foolproof, all have their advantage and disadvantage, its only the perception
and demand which favours any particular system.Since the collegium system is replaced by
NJAC, efforts should be put to mainatin dignity and autonomy of highly trusted judiciary
system of India.
With Judicial review, the higher judiciary in India has attained an unprecedented
significance. But, Collegium system has exposed some lacunae. Collegium system came to
existence in 1993. I agree that there is merit of apprehending collegium system, Reasons:

--In, collegium system say of CJI in appointment of judges is primal. 

--This is like providing similar power to CJI as same as President of India, which is
unconstitutional. 
--First Judges and Second Judges Cases have given bigger say to CJI in Appointments of
judges. 
--Article 124 says CJI must be "consulted" in all appointments. But collegium system can't
clearly interpret meaning of "consult" and "consent" as interpreted in Article 124. --So,
Political class is seeking more transparency in the appointment of judges.

14th LCI in 1956 suggested that in appointments of Judges, CJI and other judges should
have same say, none can supersede other, alike suggestion and observation were
interpreted by Justice Bhagwati and K. Iyer respectively in 1970s.

It is essential to have executive role in appointment of Judges. But providing a role as

mentioned in NJAC bill, that "5 votes" are essential for selection out of "6 votes", from panel
in which there are only three SC judges including CJI is quite vague.

There is need to balance procedure of appointment, and not to tilt it to either judiciary or
executive side.