Collegium system best suited for India for time being : Former CJI BR Gavai

Former CJI Justice BR Gavai on Sunday said that the collegium system, at least for the time being, is the best suited for India.

He also stressed that the Government should seriously consider the national litigation policy aimed at reducing pendency at courts.

The former CJI was speaking at the valedictory session of the Supreme Court Bar Association’s (SCBA) first National Conference — 2026 titled “Reimagining Judicial Governance: Strengthening Institutions for Democratic Justice.”

“An issue was raised with regard to the functioning of the collegium. I won’t say that the collegium system is a foolproof system. There can’t be a perfect system. Every system has its advantages and disadvantages. But after working for so many years, I find that the collegium system, at least for the time being, is the best suited for our country,” Gavai said.

He said the collegium doesn’t work arbitrarily. The names of the judges are recommended by the Chief Justice of the High Court and the collegium of the two most senior judges, and thereafter, it goes to the Central Government.

“The inputs of the central Government, the intelligence department and everybody are gathered, and thereafter, the Supreme Court Collegium takes a final decision. And even after the names are sent, if the Government, the executive have any issues, those issues are addressed to the collegium. The collegium considers those issues, and thereafter, it takes a final call,” he added.

Speaking about the huge gap between the sanctioned strength and the number of appointments of the High Court judges, the former CJI said, the judgement of the Supreme Court, on more than one occasion, has stated that, on the second reiteration, by the collegium, the executives are bound to make the appointment.

“But I’m sorry to say that there are various names which, even on the second recommendation, are not yet cleared by the executive. So, it’s not a blame game, but I must flag this issue,” he said.

The executive needs to consider whether they are bound by the two judgements of the Supreme Court, which say that on a second recommendation, the appointments are required to be made, he further added.

Noting that he has always maintained that High Court judges are not inferior to Supreme Court judges, Justice Gavai, while speaking on the transfer of judges, said that both are constitutional functionaries, but certain issues require transfers to be made.

“I ask a question if a particular judge defies the judgments of the Supreme Court on more than one occasion, and takes a view, contrary to the views explained by the Supreme Court in a particular matter, should the collegium remain idle or take corrective steps? Since, Bar is the mother of the judges, I must put this issue with the Bar,” he added.

Stating that as a judge he has always been in favour of maintaining a balance between the protection of the environment and sustainable development, the former CJI said, that the courts do not interfere in environmental matters just for the sake of interference, an as a matter of fact, it is because of the judgements of the court that the forest in the country are protected.

“It is because of the judgement of the Supreme Court that the issues with regard to pollution have been addressed. But I am not willing to accept the criticism that, in such matters, the judiciary acts as a stumbling block. “Whenever necessary, the judiciary has interfered, but wherever the court has found the test of environmental concern and sustainable development to be balanced, the court has always ruled in favour of them,” he said.

In cases where bails are granted after a person is incarcerated for more than 70 per cent of the sentence, the state as a routine matter, challenges the bail order. “So, the question will have to be asked as to who is also equally responsible for the huge pendency,” he asked.

There has been talk about the national litigation policy for years, but it is yet to come, he further said. “I think if the executive does something to implement or come up with the national litigation policy, it may really help in reducing the pendency.” The former CJI said that the courts always exercise restraint, and they exercise powers when they find that the fundamental rights of the citizens are violated; or the balance between the powers assigned to the executive, the judiciary, and the parliament is sought to be disturbed.

“When the executive, with its mighty hand, bulldozes the houses of the citizens, on a suspicion that he is a criminal, is the judiciary expected to sit silently and permit the executive to go ahead with such an act, which hits at the rule of all law. That’s a question which is to be considered,” he said. Gavai said that the vision of ‘Viksit Bharat’ should be to balance development along with balancing the rule of law.