The Government got the Supreme Court’s nod on Wednesday to reform collegium system of appointing judges by fixing eligibility criteria for selection, recording of minutes of collegium meetings with a view to encourage transparency, mechanism to deal with complaints against candidates considered for appointment, and a Secretariat to assist the collegium in all High Courts and the Supreme Court.
These “broad suggestions” were proposed by a five-judge Bench to the Centre for including them in the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), which governs the functioning of collegium. But before these reforms find their way into the MoP, the Bench of Justices JS Khehar, J Chelameswar, Madan B lokur, Kurian Joseph, and Adarsh Goel asked the Centre to consult Chief Justice of India adding an important rider. It said, “The Chief Justice of India will take a decision based on the unanimous view of the collegiums comprising the four seniormost puisne judges of the Supreme Court.”
This would effectively mean that instead of consulting just the CJI, any change in collegium system will now require the unanimous approval of each collegium judge.
The extensive exercise to reform collegium had begun after the five-judge Bench by a 4:1 majority verdict on October 16, 2015 struck down the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) Act as unconstitutional. The collegium, which ceased to exist following a Constitutional Amendment passed along with the NJAC Act, was simultaneously revived by the said judgment. Since the move to introduce NJAC was based on the ills of collegium system, the Bench unanimously decided to hear suggestions for reforming the present system and even invited suggestions from public aimed at introducing transparency and accountability.
On eligibility criteria, the court approved fixing of minimum age to become HC and SC judge based on the views of concerned State and Central Government. About transparency, the Bench said, “The MoP may provide for an appropriate procedure for minuting the discussions, including recording the dissenting opinion of the judges in the collegiums while making provision for the confidentiality of minutes consistent with requirement of transparency in system of appointment of judges.” There was a suggestion to disclose these minutes under RTI on which the Bench was silent.
A Secretariat to assist the collegium which can handle all files, paperwork, and keep records of appointments was welcomed by the Bench. It asked the Centre to lay down the functions, duties and responsibilities of such a Secretariat. Even on handling of complaints against candidates proposed for selection, the Bench left it to the Centre to provide an appropriate mechanism in this regard.
lastly, under miscellaneous suggestions received from public, the Bench felt that one such suggestion requiring a pre-selection interview of the candidate by the collegium would be a useful step that the Centre may include in the MoP.