Why in the News?

A private member Bill has been introduced in Parliament proposing greater diversity in judicial appointments and the creation of regional benches of the Supreme Court. The issue has gained attention because the collegium system is being questioned for lack of representation of women and marginalised groups, and because access to the Supreme Court remains difficult for people outside Delhi. The debate revives discussions on judicial reform, transparency, and equal access to justice.

How does the Constitution structure judicial appointments and institutional balance?

1. Article 124 Framework: Ensures appointment of Supreme Court judges by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India; establishes constitutional checks.
2. Article 217 Mechanism: Regulates High Court appointments through consultation involving CJI, Governor and Chief Justice of High Court; supports federal participation.
3. Article 130 Flexibility: Permits Supreme Court to sit outside Delhi with CJI approval; enables structural decentralisation though rarely utilised.
4. Institutional Balance: Maintains equilibrium between executive authority and judicial independence in appointments.

Why was the collegium system created and how has it evolved institutionally?

1. First Judges Case (1981): Allowed executive primacy in appointments; raised concerns over judicial independence.
2. Second Judges Case (1993): Created collegium system; ensured judicial primacy to safeguard independence.
3. Third Judges Case (1998): Expanded collegium composition to include senior judges; strengthened internal consultation.
4. Outcome: Ensures insulation from executive interference but generates criticism regarding opacity and accountability.

Why was the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) struck down and what institutional concerns remain?

1. 99th Constitutional Amendment (2014): Established NJAC including executive members and civil society representation.
2. Supreme Court Judgment (2015): Struck down NJAC citing violation of basic structure doctrine and judicial independence.
3. Institutional Impact: Restored collegium system; highlighted tension between transparency and independence.
4. Accountability Gap: Continues debate over lack of clear selection criteria and public scrutiny.

What does the proposed Bill indicate about diversity and representational deficits in the higher judiciary?

1. Social Representation: Less than 20% representation of SC/ST/OBC judges in higher judiciary (as highlighted in article).
2. Gender Gap: Women’s representation remains below 15%; indicates structural exclusion.
3. Minority Presence: Religious minorities account for nearly 5% representation; raises equality concerns.
4. Policy Proposal: Mandates representation proportional to population while making appointments.
5. Timeline Reform: Suggests maximum 90-day timeline for notifying collegium recommendations; ensures procedural efficiency.

How can regional benches of the Supreme Court strengthen access to justice and federal balance?

1. Accessibility Challenge: Supreme Court located only in Delhi limits access for citizens from distant regions.
2. Case Backlog: Around 90,000+ pending cases indicates pressure on institutional capacity.
3. Regional Bench Proposal: Benches at Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai, Chennai; supports geographical equity.
4. Jurisdiction Design: Constitutional matters remain with principal bench; regional benches handle regular appeals
5. Outcome: Reduces travel costs, improves timely justice, strengthens federal inclusiveness.

What governance reforms are suggested to balance independence, diversity, and accountability?

1. Collegium Reform: Prioritises social diversity within existing framework; ensures constitutional compatibility.
2. Broader Consultation: Includes representatives from legislature, bar councils, and academia for inclusive inputs.
3. Comparative Models: UK and South Africa cited as examples of wider consultative appointment systems.
4. Institutional Accountability: Strengthens legitimacy without undermining judicial autonomy.

Conclusion

Judicial diversity and accessibility are emerging as central concerns in debates on institutional reform. Any future framework must preserve judicial independence while ensuring representation, transparency, and equitable access to justice. Structural reforms within constitutional limits remain critical for strengthening public trust in the judiciary.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2021] Discuss the desirability of greater representation to women in the higher judiciary to ensure diversity, equity and inclusiveness.

Linkage: This question directly links to the debate on diversity in judicial appointments, highlighting representation as a constitutional and governance concern within the higher judiciary. It connects with current discussions on reforming the collegium system to ensure inclusiveness, institutional legitimacy, and equitable access to justice.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now