🐾

Collegium System

Evolution, The 1+4 Rule, Reiteration & The Opacity Debate

PART I — ORIGIN & COMPOSITION

THE THREE JUDGES CASES

The system is an invention of the judiciary, **not found in the original Constitution**.
**First Judges Case (1981):** Ruled that "consultation" with CJI is not binding; gave Executive primacy.
**Second Judges Case (1993):** Reversed the 1981 ruling. Declared that "consultation" means "concurrence," making the CJI's advice binding, thereby birthing the Collegium.

THE THIRD JUDGES CASE (1998)

Triggered by a Presidential Reference under Art 143. The SC ruled that the CJI cannot act individually; a "plurality of judges" is required.
**Supreme Court Collegium:** Consists of the CJI and the **4 senior-most judges** of the Supreme Court.
**High Court Collegium:** Consists of the Chief Justice of the respective High Court and the **2 senior-most judges** of that High Court. (HC collegium recommendations still need approval from the CJI and SC collegium).

MEMORANDUM OF PROCEDURE

The Collegium sends recommendations to the Law Ministry, which conducts background checks via the Intelligence Bureau (IB).
The Government can return a recommendation for reconsideration, stating its objections.
**The Binding Rule:** If the Collegium **reiterates** its recommendation (sends the same name back), the Government is **constitutionally bound** to appoint them.
*Friction:* The Government often uses a "Pocket Veto"—sitting on reiterated names for months to stall appointments.

THE BLACK BOX

**Opacity:** The Collegium functions in secret. There is no official secretariat, no formal application process, and no public criteria for selecting judges.
Critics argue it promotes nepotism and an "Uncle Judges" syndrome, lacking democratic accountability.
**Recent Steps:** In 2017, the SC started publishing resolutions of collegium meetings online to introduce some transparency, though the actual reasoning often remains shielded.

INITIALIZE: WORLD P — THE FEDERAL SYSTEM