💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (July Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Judiciary

  • Power and freedom: On the Senthilbalaji case

    Why in the News?

    On April 23, the Supreme Court told Tamil Nadu Minister V. Senthilbalaji, who has been out on bail since September 2024 in a money laundering case, to choose between keeping his position or his freedom. This was an expected statement.

    Why did the Supreme Court question V. Senthilbalaji’s continuation in office while on bail?

    • Conflict of Interest Between Bail and Office: The Supreme Court questioned V. Senthilbalaji’s continuation in office while on bail in a money laundering case, suggesting that he should choose between his ministerial position and his freedom. Eg: The Court pointed out the issue of a person facing serious criminal charges holding a high office of responsibility.
    • Concerns About Potential Witness Tampering: The Court expressed concerns that Senthilbalaji might tamper with evidence or influence witnesses due to his position of power. Eg: Justice Oka’s remark that Senthilbalaji might prevent witnesses from testifying indicated the gravity of the situation.
    • Premature Re-induction Into the Cabinet: The Supreme Court had previously granted bail to Senthilbalaji not on merits, but because he had already served one year in detention. His return to the Cabinet shortly after this raised doubts, as the Court had not cleared him of the charges. Eg: This was exemplified by the Court’s remark that it had made a “mistake” in granting him bail.

    What concerns did the Supreme Court raise about Senthilbalaji’s conduct?

    • Dishonest Conduct and Risk of Evidence Tampering: The Supreme Court raised concerns about Senthilbalaji’s dishonest conduct and the potential risk of him tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses in the case. Eg: Justice Oka’s remark about Senthilbalaji ensuring no witnesses come to the box reflected this concern.
    • Inappropriate Return to the Cabinet While Facing Serious Charges: The Court questioned the propriety of Senthilbalaji being re-inducted into the Cabinet while facing serious criminal charges. Eg: The Court had previously stated that granting bail was not based on merits, but on the time already served, which raised doubts about his fitness for office.

    Why is Senthilbalaji’s re-induction into the Cabinet legally scrutinized?

    • Bail Conditions Not Fully Met: Senthilbalaji’s re-induction into the Cabinet is legally scrutinized because he was granted bail not on merits but on the ground that he had already spent one year in incarceration as an undertrial. Eg: The Court had questioned his return to the Cabinet just after granting him bail, highlighting concerns over his ongoing legal situation.
    • Impact on Fair Trial and Public Perception: His re-induction raises questions about the fairness of his trial and the potential to undermine justice. Eg: The Supreme Court had earlier expressed its objection to his return to the Cabinet, stating that it could negatively affect the victims of the job scandal and the integrity of the trial process.

    Why should Senthilbalaji avoid staying in the Cabinet?

    • Legal and Ethical Concerns: Senthilbalaji’s continued stay in the Cabinet raises legal and ethical issues due to the money laundering case against him. Eg: The Supreme Court’s remarks about the possibility of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses highlight the risks of him holding a position of power while facing serious charges.
    • Risk of Damage to Reputation and Governance: His re-induction into the Cabinet could harm the government’s reputation and undermine public trust in governance. Eg: The Court had earlier granted him bail on humanitarian grounds, not on merits, and his return to the Cabinet despite ongoing charges could be seen as improper, potentially leading to political fallout.

    Way forward: 

    • Resignation for Upholding Integrity: Senthilbalaji should voluntarily resign from the Cabinet to maintain the integrity of the government and avoid further legal scrutiny.
    • Clear Legal Resolution: A clear and swift legal resolution should be sought, ensuring that the charges are addressed transparently, without political interference, to restore public confidence.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2024] The Doctrine of Democratic Governance makes it necessary that the public perception of the integrity and commitment of civil servants becomes absolutely positive. Discuss.

    Linkage: Although focused on civil servants, the underlying principle of integrity and public perception in governance is relevant to the case of a Minister like Mr. Senthilbalaji, especially given the Supreme Court’s observations on his conduct.

  • Is India witnessing judicial despotism?

    Why in the News?

    Recently, a number of court rulings have led many people to question the powers and intentions of the Supreme Court. Although criticism of the judiciary is not new, it has increased.

    What is the significance of judicial review in the Indian Constitution?

    • Upholds Constitutional Supremacy: Judicial review ensures that all laws and actions by the government are in line with the Constitution. Eg: In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution, reinforcing constitutional supremacy.
    • Protects Fundamental Rights: It provides a mechanism for individuals to challenge laws or executive actions that violate their fundamental rights. Eg: In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the court ruled that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 cannot be violated without just, fair, and reasonable procedure.
    • Maintains Checks and Balances: Judicial review prevents arbitrary use of power by the legislature or executive, maintaining the balance of power among the three branches of government. Eg: In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the court struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment that tried to limit the power of judicial review itself, preserving the judiciary’s role as a check on Parliament.

    How is it related to Article 13?

    • Declares Inconsistent Laws Void: Article 13(1) & (2) state that any law that violates Fundamental Rights is void to the extent of the violation. This empowers the judiciary to review and strike down such laws. Eg: In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), although the court upheld the Preventive Detention Act, the case established the judiciary’s power to examine laws under Article 13.
    • Forms the Basis for Judicial Review: Article 13 acts as the foundation for judicial review by mandating that all laws (past and future) must conform to Fundamental Rights. Eg: In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the court used Article 13 to assert that even constitutional amendments are subject to judicial review if they violate the basic structure or Fundamental Rights.
    • Ensures Protection Against State Actions: Article 13 defines “law” to include ordinances, orders, bye-laws, rules, regulations, etc., thereby subjecting all state actions to judicial scrutiny. Eg: In State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010), the court affirmed that Article 13 covers all state actions, ensuring their consistency with Fundamental Rights.

    How did the Supreme Court’s activism during the Emergency impact its role in protecting democracy?

    • Judicial Abdication in the ADM Jabalpur Case: The Court failed to protect civil liberties by ruling that even the right to life could be suspended during the Emergency. Eg: ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) – The majority held that citizens had no remedy if the state detained them illegally during Emergency, weakening democratic safeguards.
    • Erosion of Public Faith in Judiciary: The decision in ADM Jabalpur was widely criticized and seen as the Court yielding to executive pressure, leading to a decline in public confidence. Eg: Justice H.R. Khanna’s lone dissent defending civil liberties became a symbol of judicial integrity, but the majority judgment damaged the Court’s image.
    • Shift Towards Judicial Activism Post-Emergency: In response to its failure, the Court later adopted a more proactive role in defending rights through Public Interest Litigations (PILs). Eg: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – The Court expanded the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), overturning its narrow view in earlier cases.
    • Strengthening of Basic Structure Doctrine: After the Emergency, the judiciary reinforced its role as a guardian of the Constitution, making it clear that even Parliament cannot amend the basic structure. Eg: Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) – The Court reaffirmed that judicial review is a part of the basic structure and cannot be taken away.
    • Restoration of Accountability and Civil Rights: The Court became more vigilant in ensuring that executive actions respect democratic principles and individual freedoms. Eg: The growth of PILs in the 1980s allowed the judiciary to directly address the grievances of the marginalized and hold the state accountable.

    Why is the Supreme Court’s power under Article 142 considered essential?

    • Ensures Complete Justice in Exceptional Situations: Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing “complete justice” in any case before it, even if no specific law exists. Eg: Union Carbide Case (Bhopal Gas Tragedy, 1989) – The Court invoked Article 142 to ensure compensation for victims, overriding procedural hurdles.
    • Fills Legislative or Procedural Gaps Temporarily: It allows the Court to address legal voids until Parliament or the executive acts, ensuring justice is not delayed due to technicalities. Eg: Supreme Court guidelines on sexual harassment at workplaces (Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, 1997) – The Court framed guidelines under Article 142 in absence of legislation.

    What are the concerns surrounding its misuse?

    • Overreach and Violation of Separation of Powers: There is a risk that the Court might overstep its boundaries, encroaching on the domain of the executive or legislature, thus undermining the principle of separation of powers.Eg: Judicial intervention in policy matters – If the Court starts making decisions on matters that should be left to the government, like executive policies, it can be seen as an overreach.
    • Potential for Arbitrary Decisions: The broad discretion granted by Article 142 can sometimes lead to arbitrary decisions, which may not align with established legal principles or may be seen as politically motivated. Eg: Judgment in the Babri Masjid Case (2019) – The Court’s intervention in the Babri case was criticized for favoring peace over legal principles, potentially opening doors for biased interpretations.

    How does the judiciary uphold the Constitution without overstepping the separation of powers between the legislature and the executive?

    • Judicial Review with Restraint: The judiciary exercises judicial review carefully, ensuring it only intervenes in cases where constitutional violations or fundamental rights are at stake, and refrains from delving into policy decisions better left to the executive or legislature. Eg: Right to Privacy Case (2017) – The Supreme Court upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right, checking executive overreach but refraining from interfering with legislative or executive policy decisions.
    • Respect for Legislative and Executive Domains: The judiciary respects the roles and powers of the legislature and executive, ensuring that it does not encroach on their function while interpreting the law within its constitutional framework. Eg: Constitutionality of the GST (2017) – The Supreme Court reviewed the constitutional validity of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) but did not interfere with the operational execution, leaving implementation to the executive.

    Way forward: 

    • Ensure Judicial Independence: Strengthen mechanisms to safeguard the judiciary from executive and legislative influence, ensuring impartiality and constitutional integrity.
    • Foster Collaborative Governance: Encourage constructive dialogue between the judiciary, legislature, and executive to maintain balance and prevent unnecessary judicial overreach.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2015] Starting from inventing the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, the judiciary has played a highly proactive role in ensuring that India develops into a thriving democracy. In light of the statement, evaluate the role played by judicial activism in achieving the ideals of democracy.

    Linkage: In this article, evaluate judicial activism. Some people see it as essential for protecting the Constitution, while others think it goes too far, interfering with the roles of the legislature and executive, and might even lead to judges having too much power.

  • [11th April 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Are existing mechanisms effective in combating judicial corruption?

    PYQ Relevance:

    [UPSC 2017] Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ concerning the appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India.

    Linkage: The integrity of the appointment process is a key mechanism to prevent the entry of potentially corrupt individuals into the judiciary. Debates around judicial appointments often touch upon the need for transparency and meritocracy to safeguard against various forms of impropriety, including corruption.

     

    Mentor’s Comment:  The current system to deal with corruption in the judiciary includes in-house inquiries, impeachment, and oversight by the Supreme Court and High Courts. However, it is often slow, and secretive, and rarely results in strict action. Lack of transparency and political influence can weaken its impact, making it less effective in ensuring full accountability of judges.

    Today’s editorial talks about problems in making judges more accountable. It highlights gaps in how judicial misconduct is handled and why better checks are needed. This topic is useful for UPSC GS Paper 2 (governance, transparency) and GS Paper 4 (ethics, integrity in public life).

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    Last month, a large amount of unaccounted cash was reportedly found at the official home of former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma. In response, Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, started an internal inquiry into the matter.

    What are the limitations of the impeachment process in ensuring judicial accountability?

    • High Threshold for Removal: The impeachment process requires a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament and an absolute majority of total membership. This makes it extremely difficult to impeach a judge even in cases of credible misconduct. Eg: No judge of the Supreme Court or High Court has ever been successfully impeached in independent India, despite allegations — such as in the case of Justice V. Ramaswami (1993), whose impeachment failed due to political abstentions.
    • Over-Reliance on Political Consensus: The process is politically driven, requiring broad support across parties, which may not be feasible in a fragmented or polarized Parliament. Political considerations often override judicial integrity in decision-making.
    • Delayed and Ineffective as a Deterrent: The process is slow, opaque, and reactive, initiated only after significant public outcry or media coverage. It fails to act as a timely or effective deterrent, allowing misconduct to go unchecked. Eg: Justice Nirmal Yadav of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was acquitted nearly 15 years after a corruption inquiry, despite early evidence.

    Why is there a demand to institutionalise transparency in judicial inquiries?

    • Prevents Perception of Shielding Judges: Transparency helps counter the belief that the judiciary protects its own members in misconduct cases. Eg: In the Justice Yashwant Varma case, the Supreme Court proactively released CCTV footage showing recovery of unaccounted cash to pre-empt accusations of cover-up.
    • Builds Public Trust and Confidence: In an era of social and mass media scrutiny, opaque proceedings can fuel public suspicion and damage the judiciary’s credibility. Making inquiry reports public can reaffirm accountability and institutional integrity.
    • Reduces Speculation and Misinformation: Lack of official communication can lead to rumours or leaks, which may distort facts and undermine due process. Eg: Experts have suggested appointing dedicated communications personnel in the judiciary to clarify facts and handle sensitive disclosures responsibly.

    Who informally influences judicial appointments, and how does it impact the collegium?

    • Executive’s Role in Informal Consultations: Even before formal recommendations, the executive is consulted informally, allowing it to influence selections. Eg: The Union Government often shares IB (Intelligence Bureau) inputs that can sway or stall decisions by the collegium.
    • De Facto Executive Veto: The government can withhold or delay approval of names without giving reasons, effectively creating a veto power. Eg: Several appointments have been indefinitely delayed by the executive sitting on the collegium’s recommendations.
    • Impact on Transparency and Candidate Morale: This opaque and selective process discourages deserving candidates from participating in judicial selection. Eg: Many lawyers and judges avoid the process due to its lack of transparency and potential for humiliation.

    How can peer review within the judiciary be strengthened to prevent judicial misconduct?

    • Institutionalising Informal FeedbackRegularise the informal feedback already exchanged within legal circles into a formal review system. Eg: Concerns shared among judges and lawyers about a colleague’s integrity can be compiled and assessed systematically.
    • Involving Bar Associations: Inputs from bar associations can serve as early warnings of problematic judicial behaviour. Eg: If advocates repeatedly report bias or misconduct by a judge, it could trigger a formal internal review.
    • Mandatory Periodic Evaluations: Judges could undergo peer-reviewed performance evaluations at regular intervals. Eg: Evaluation of case disposal rates, conduct in court, and legal soundness of judgments by a panel of peers.
    • Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: Enforce mandatory disclosures of family members practicing in the same court or other potential conflicts. Eg: If a judge’s relative practices in the same court, either the judge is transferred or the relative is barred from appearing.
    • Protection of Whistleblowers Within Judiciary: Create a safe mechanism for judges or staff to report unethical conduct without fear of retaliation. Eg: A junior judge or clerk reporting bribe attempts or unusual case assignments should be protected and heard confidentially.

    When can contempt laws allow public scrutiny without undermining judicial dignity?

    • When Criticism is in Good Faith and Based on Facts: Legitimate concerns or constructive criticism aimed at reform, not defamation, should be allowed. Eg: A lawyer or journalist pointing out procedural delays or lack of transparency in judicial appointments based on verified data.
    • When the Speech is Not Intended to Scandalise the Court: Public discourse that respects the institution but critiques specific actions or decisions helps improve accountability. Eg: Civil society groups questioning a controversial verdict or delay in inquiry, without using derogatory language.
    • When It Promotes Institutional Integrity: Scrutiny that leads to reform and helps maintain the credibility of the judiciary should not be penalised. Eg: Media coverage exposing corruption in the judiciary, like the Justice Yashwant Varma case, can lead to necessary reforms if done responsibly.

    Way forward:

    • Establish an Independent Judicial Oversight Body: A permanent and independent authority comprising retired judges, legal scholars, and public representatives can investigate complaints, oversee peer reviews, and recommend disciplinary action.
    • Codify Transparent Guidelines and Communication Protocols: Formulate clear, time-bound procedures for judicial appointments, disclosures, and inquiry mechanisms with mandatory public reporting (where appropriate). Eg: Publish annual integrity audits, conflict-of-interest registers, and inquiry outcomes (with due protection for sensitive data) to uphold public trust.

  • Only 12% of HC judges disclosed assets, data show

    Why in the News?

    Out of 769 judges serving in 25 High Courts, only 95 (12.35%) have disclosed their assets publicly. Courts like Kerala (93.18%) and Himachal Pradesh (91.66%) lead in transparency, while Madras (5 of 65) and Chhattisgarh (1 of 16) lag significantly.

    Only 12% of HC judges disclosed assets, data show

    Why is judicial asset disclosure vital for accountability and transparency in India?

    • Promotes Public Trust in the Judiciary: Transparency about judges’ financial status builds confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary. Eg: The Kerala High Court, where 93.18% of judges disclosed their assets, is often cited for maintaining high standards of judicial transparency.
    • Acts as a Deterrent Against Corruption: Mandatory and public asset declarations reduce the scope for corrupt practices by subjecting judges to public scrutiny. Eg: The recent discovery of partially burnt currency notes at a High Court judge’s residence intensified concerns over hidden wealth and lack of oversight.
    • Ensures Accountability of Public Office Holders: Judges are public servants paid from taxpayer money, and like elected representatives, must be held financially accountable. Eg: The Supreme Court’s past judgment requiring MPs/MLAs to declare assets reflects this principle — the same logic applies to the judiciary.
    • Reduces Risk of Conflict of Interest: Regular disclosures help identify any undue financial interest that could influence judicial decisions. Eg: A judge ruling on a corporate dispute may be biased if they own shares in one of the companies involved — disclosures would reveal this.
    • Strengthens Institutional Transparency and Ethics: It sets an ethical benchmark for the judiciary and other branches of government, promoting clean and transparent governance. Eg: The Supreme Court’s recent Full Court resolution (April 2025) to make all judges’ assets public reflects a significant move toward institutional integrity.

    How can the Supreme Court’s asset disclosure push drive wider judicial reforms?

    • Sets a Precedent for High Courts: The Supreme Court’s collective decision encourages other High Courts to adopt similar transparency measures, creating a ripple effect across the judiciary. Eg: After the Supreme Court’s Full Court resolution (April 2025), pressure has increased on High Courts like Madras and Chhattisgarh, where disclosure rates remain low.
    • Catalyzes Legislative and Policy Reforms: The move strengthens the case for mandatory annual disclosures through legislation, as recommended by parliamentary committees. Eg: The 2023 Parliamentary Standing Committee Report called for laws requiring asset declarations by all judges — the Supreme Court’s step gives it momentum.
    • Promotes a Culture of Judicial Accountability and Ethics: Voluntary public disclosures help build a culture of openness, paving the way for broader reforms like transparent appointments, performance reviews, and grievance redressal. Eg: Similar transparency efforts contributed to the creation of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) debate and ongoing calls for reforming the collegium system.

    Who are the key institutions responsible for enforcing judges’ asset disclosure?

    • The Supreme Court of India: As the apex judicial authority, the Supreme Court plays a norm-setting role, influencing High Courts through its own practices and resolutions. Eg: The Full Court resolution of April 2025, where all 33 Supreme Court judges agreed to make their asset declarations public, sets a national benchmark for judicial transparency.
    • High Courts and Their Chief Justices: Each High Court is responsible for framing internal guidelines and encouraging or mandating its judges to disclose assets. Eg: The Kerala High Court, where 41 out of 44 judges have declared their assets, demonstrates effective internal leadership and commitment to transparency.
    • Parliament and Parliamentary Standing Committees: Through legislative oversight and recommendations, Parliament can initiate legal mandates for asset disclosures and hold the judiciary accountable in the public interest. Eg: The 2023 Standing Committee Report on Judicial Reforms recommended that the government make annual property disclosures by all judges a statutory requirement.

    Way forward: 

    • Enact a Statutory Framework for Mandatory Annual Disclosures: The government should introduce legislation making annual asset and liability declarations mandatory for all judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. This would ensure uniformity, legal backing, and prevent selective or voluntary compliance.
    • Establish an Independent Oversight Mechanism for Verification and Monitoring: Set up an independent judicial accountability commission or ethics body to verify disclosures, monitor compliance, and address grievances related to judicial integrity.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2021] “An independent and empowered social audit mechanism is an absolute must in every sphere of public service, including the judiciary, to ensure performance, accountability and ethical conduct. Elaborate

    Linkage:  Disclosure of assets is important to ensure that judges act responsibly and ethically. It helps build trust among the people and also supports the authority of the Constitution.

  • An IJS is an idea whose time has come

    Why in the News?

    Social media has been flooded with memes, and one of the most popular ones says, “For the first time, a fire brigade has started more fires than it put out.” The truth is, the fire is still burning. This perfectly reflects the ongoing controversy surrounding the Delhi High Court judge and the half-burnt currency notes case.

    What key issues arise from the Delhi High Court Judge controversy over half-burnt currency notes?

    • Allegations of Corruption in the Judiciary: The discovery of half-burnt currency notes at a judge’s residence raises suspicions of financial misconduct and corruption within the judiciary. Example: The Justice P.D. Dinakaran case, where allegations of land grabbing and corruption led to his resignation before impeachment proceedings.
    • Lack of Immediate Legal Action and Accountability: Unlike other public officials who face direct investigations, the judge in question was merely repatriated to his parent High Court, reflecting a selective approach to judicial accountability. Example: Justice Soumitra Sen of Calcutta High Court was impeached for financial misconduct, but only after prolonged proceedings, highlighting delays in judicial accountability.
    • Opacity in Internal Inquiry Mechanisms: The judiciary relies on internal probes rather than independent investigations, raising concerns about transparency and impartiality in handling misconduct. Example: The former CJI Ranjan Gogoi sexual harassment case, where an internal Supreme Court panel cleared him without an external review, leading to public outcry.

    Why has the Collegium system of judicial appointments in India faced criticism over the years?

    • Lack of Transparency and Accountability: The Collegium functions through closed-door deliberations without publicly disclosing selection criteria or reasons for appointments and rejections. Example: In 2019, Justice Akil Kureshi’s elevation was delayed without a clear explanation, raising concerns over executive influence and opaque decision-making.
    • Nepotism and Judicial Dynasties: The system has been criticized for favoring judges’ relatives and individuals with strong connections rather than selecting candidates purely on merit. Example: The presence of multiple second-generation judges in the Supreme Court, such as Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (son of former CJI Y.V. Chandrachud), has fueled debates over judicial nepotism.
    • Lack of Diversity and Inclusivity: The Collegium system has led to an underrepresentation of marginalized communities, women, and candidates from diverse backgrounds in the higher judiciary. Example: As of 2024, the percentage of women judges in the Supreme Court remains significantly low, with only three out of 34 judges being women.

    How can the establishment of an Indian Judicial Service help address concerns regarding judicial accountability and transparency?

    • Merit-Based and Transparent Selection Process: The IJS would ensure that judges are selected through a competitive examination, reducing nepotism and favoritism in judicial appointments. Example: Similar to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), where UPSC conducts open and merit-based recruitment, an IJS would create a level playing field for candidates from diverse backgrounds.
    • Greater Diversity and Inclusivity in the Judiciary: A national-level selection system would bring in candidates from different social, economic, and regional backgrounds, making the judiciary more representative. Example: Currently, women and marginalized communities are underrepresented in the higher judiciary, but an IJS could help bridge this gap by ensuring equal opportunities.
    • Stronger Oversight and Accountability Mechanisms: Judges recruited through IJS could be subjected to periodic performance reviews and disciplinary oversight, ensuring accountability and ethical conduct. Example: In Germany, judges are part of a structured civil service system with evaluation and accountability mechanisms, ensuring higher judicial standards.

    Who would be responsible for conducting the recruitment process for the Indian Judicial Service?

    • Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) as the Conducting Authority: The UPSC, which already handles merit-based recruitment for civil services like IAS and IPS, could be entrusted with conducting exams for IJS to ensure transparency and fairness. Example: The Judicial Services Examination at the state level is conducted by State Public Service Commissions; a national-level IJS could follow the same model under UPSC.
    • Supreme Court and High Courts for Selection Criteria and Oversight: The Supreme Court, in consultation with High Courts and legal experts, could frame eligibility criteria, syllabus, and selection methods to maintain judicial independence. Example: The All India Judicial Service (AIJS) proposal, discussed since the 1960s, suggested a recruitment system similar to UPSC but with judicial oversight to ensure fairness.
    • Independent Judicial Commission for Monitoring and Appointments: An autonomous body, comprising retired judges, legal scholars, and judicial officers, could be set up to oversee appointments and address grievances. Example: Judicial Appointments Commissions exist in the UK, where an independent body handles judicial recruitment, preventing executive or political interference.

    Way forward: 

    • Balanced Judicial Appointments with Greater Transparency: Establish a Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) that includes representatives from the judiciary, executive, and civil society to ensure a more transparent and accountable selection process.
    • Strengthening Judicial Accountability Mechanisms: Implement periodic performance reviews and ethical oversight for judges, with an independent body monitoring judicial conduct and financial integrity.

    Mains PYQ:

    Question: Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India. [UPSC 2017]

    Linkage: Existing mechanism for judicial appointments and the debates surrounding it. The discussion on an IJS often arises as an alternative or complementary approach to the current system, aiming for greater transparency and potentially reducing the scope for concerns raised in the NJAC debate.

     

  • What are the Norms for Disclosure of Judges’ Assets?

    Why in the News?

    The discovery of large sums of cash at Delhi High Court judges’ residence has raised concerns about corruption in India’s judiciary and reignited the debate over the public disclosure of judges’ assets and liabilities.

    Current Stance on Judges’ Asset Disclosure

    • Supreme Court’s Historical Approach:
      • 1997 Resolution: The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice J.S. Verma, resolved that judges should disclose their assets to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), but this did not involve public disclosure.
      • 2009 Resolution: The full Bench of the Supreme Court agreed to publish judges’ asset declarations on the court’s website, though this was done voluntarily. However, the website has not been updated since 2018, and the assets of current judges are not publicly available.
      • 2019 Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that judges’ personal assets and liabilities are not private information, making them subject to the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
    • High Court’s Position:
      • As of March 2024, only 13% of High Court judges have publicly disclosed their assets and liabilities. Many High Courts, including Uttarakhand and Allahabad, have opposed public disclosure and argued that such information is outside the scope of the RTI Act.
    • Resistance to Full Disclosure:
      • The Uttarakhand High Court (2012) passed a resolution opposing the disclosure of judges’ assets under the RTI Act. Similarly, many High Courts have rejected RTI applications seeking information about judges’ assets.

    Parliament’s Role – Proposed Reforms

    • Committee Recommendation (2023):
      • The Parliamentary Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, and Law and Justice recommended that legislation be introduced to make the disclosure of judges’ assets and liabilities mandatory for Supreme Court and High Court judges.
      • However, there has been no progress on implementing this recommendation as of now.
    • Need for Legislation:
      • Despite the RTI Act requiring public servants to disclose their assets, judges have largely remained exempt from such transparency.
      • Legislative action is seen as essential to ensure accountability and transparency within the judiciary, with several advocating for mandatory public disclosure similar to other public officials.
    [UPSC 2017] With reference to the appointment of the High Court Judges, consider the following statements:

    1. Chief Justice of India is consulted by the President in the appointment.

    2. Governor of the State is consulted by the Chief Justice of India in the appointment.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2

    [UPSC 2021] An independent and empowered social audit mechanism is an absolute must in every sphere of public service, including judiciary, to ensure performance, accountability and ethical conduct. Elaborate.

     

  • [26th March 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: How is an in-house inquiry conducted?

    PYQ Relevance:

    Question: Explain the reasons for the growth of public interest litigation in India. As a result of it, has the Indian Supreme Court emerged as the world’s most powerful judiciary? (UPSC 2024)

    Reason: This question discusses the role and power of the Supreme Court. Understanding the mechanisms the court has developed for internal accountability, like the in-house inquiry, provides a more complete picture of its functioning.

     

    Mentor’s Comment:  Understanding the in-house inquiry process is essential for GS Paper 2  as it highlights judicial accountability and self-regulation. The inquiry against Justice Yashwant Varma underscores concerns over transparency, delays, and the lack of external oversight in handling judicial misconduct. This article helps aspirants analyze judicial independence, the need for reforms, and ways to enhance public trust, making it valuable for Mains questions on judicial accountability.

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    A three-member committee will investigate the allegations of cash found at the official residence of Delhi High Court Judge Yashwant Varma.

    What is the current issue involving Justice Yashwant Varma? What led to the in-house inquiry against him?

    • Fire Incident and Discovery of Cash: A fire broke out at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence (Delhi High Court) on March 14. Fire-control personnel discovered huge piles of burnt cash in a storeroom. Example: Similar cases in the past, like Justice Soumitra Sen’s impeachment (2011), highlight concerns over judicial integrity.
    • Preliminary Inquiry and Response: The Chief Justice of Delhi High Court conducted a preliminary inquiry and recommended a deeper probe to the Chief Justice of India (CJI). Justice Varma denied any knowledge of the cash, stating that neither he nor his family had placed it in the storeroom. Example: In Justice P.D. Dinakaran’s case (2011), allegations of corruption led to an investigation and resignation.
    • Formation of an In-House Inquiry Committee: The CJI constituted a three-member committee as per the Supreme Court’s in-house procedure. Justice Varma’s judicial work was withdrawn, and he was transferred to the Allahabad High Court. Example: In 2019, Justice S.N. Shukla (Allahabad HC) was found guilty of misconduct by an in-house committee, leading to his removal process.

    Why is there a need for reforms in the judicial inquiry process? 

    • Lack of Transparency in In-House Inquiries: The findings of judicial misconduct inquiries are not made public, reducing accountability and eroding public trust. The Supreme Court should disclose key findings to instill confidence in the process. Example: The Justice S.N. Shukla (2019) case remained confidential despite serious allegations of misconduct.
    • Absence of Criminal Liability for Judges: Judges found guilty of misconduct are only asked to resign or face impeachment, with no criminal proceedings initiated. Judges found guilty of corruption or abuse of power should face legal prosecution, like other public officials. Example: Justice Soumitra Sen (2011) was impeached for financial misconduct but did not face any criminal charges.
    • Collegium System’s Lack of Oversight: The current system of judges appointing judges lacks external accountability, making disciplinary actions inconsistent. A broad-based Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) should oversee both appointments and misconduct inquiries. Example: The NJAC (2015) was struck down by the Supreme Court, keeping the opaque collegium system intact.
    • No Independent Body for Judicial Discipline: India lacks an independent statutory authority to investigate judicial misconduct, leading to delays and conflicts of interest. Establishing a Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, similar to the UK’s model, would ensure impartial investigations.Example: The UK’s Judicial Conduct Investigations Office ensures independent scrutiny of complaints against judges.
    • Slow and Ineffective Inquiry Process: Judicial misconduct cases often drag on for years, allowing judges to retire without consequences. Setting strict timelines for inquiries and fast-tracking disciplinary actions would improve efficiency. Example: Justice P.D. Dinakaran’s case (alleged land grabbing) took years, and he resigned before impeachment proceedings could conclude.

    What is the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO)?

    The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) is an independent body in the United Kingdom responsible for handling complaints of judicial misconduct. It ensures that judges, magistrates, and tribunal members adhere to ethical standards.

    What is the In-House Inquiry Process? 

    • The In-House Inquiry Process is an internal disciplinary mechanism used by the judiciary to investigate allegations of misconduct against sitting judges.
    • The In-House Inquiry Process is not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution. Instead, it was formulated by the Supreme Court of India in 1997 as an internal mechanism to investigate allegations of misconduct against sitting judges.

    How does the in-house inquiry process compare to international practices, such as the UK’s Judicial Conduct Investigations Office?

    • Independence of Inquiry Process: The in-house inquiry is conducted by sitting judges, which may lead to conflicts of interest. The JCIO is an independent statutory body, separate from the judiciary, ensuring impartiality. Example: In India, inquiries against judges often lack external oversight, whereas in the UK, the JCIO investigates complaints independently.
    • Transparency in Investigation and Findings: In-house inquiries are confidential, and findings are rarely made public. The JCIO publishes key details of misconduct cases, fostering transparency and public trust. Example: The dismissal of a UK judge for inappropriate behavior was publicly reported, whereas similar cases in India remain undisclosed.
    • Consequences for Judicial Misconduct: Indian Judges found guilty may be asked to resign or face impeachment, but rarely face criminal action. The JCIO can recommend removal from office, financial penalties, or disciplinary actions, and misconduct can lead to legal prosecution. Example: In India, Justice Soumitra Sen was impeached but faced no criminal charges, whereas in the UK, judges have been removed for misconduct.
    • Public Accessibility and Complaint Mechanism: In India, complaints against judges go through the Chief Justice and are not directly accessible to the public. UK Citizens can file complaints directly with the JCIO through an online portal, ensuring accessibility. Example: In the UK, public complaints against judges are reviewed transparently, while in India, the process is internal and often delayed.
    • Time-bound investigation and Action: In India, no fixed timeline for in-house inquiries, leading to delays in disciplinary actions. In the UK, JCIO follows a structured timeline for investigations and ensures timely resolution. Example: Justice P.D. Dinakaran’s case in India dragged on for years, whereas JCIO inquiries in the UK conclude within months.

    Way forward: 

    • Establish an Independent Judicial Oversight Body: Create a statutory authority to investigate judicial misconduct, ensuring impartiality and timely resolution. Example: A model similar to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office would enhance accountability.
    • Enhance Transparency and Public Trust: Publish key findings of judicial inquiries and introduce structured timelines for investigations. Example: Releasing redacted reports on judicial misconduct can improve public confidence.

  • Appointment and Removal of High Court Judges

    Why in the News?

    The Chief Justice of India (CJI) has set up a three-member panel to investigate the alleged discovery of a significant sum of money at the residence of a sitting Delhi High Court judge.

    Appointment Process of High Court Judges:

    • According to Article 217, the President of India appoints High Court judges after consulting with the CJI, the Governor of the respective state, and the Chief Justice of the High Court.
    • In the case of the appointment of a judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High Court is consulted as well.
    • Consultation Process:
      • The process of appointing judges is handled by a Collegium, which includes the CJI and the two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
      • The Collegium System allows for a collaborative decision-making process where the Chief Justice of the High Court initiates the proposal, which is then forwarded to the Chief Minister.
      • The Chief Minister, in turn, advises the Governor, who submits the proposal to the Union Law Minister.
      • The Chief Justice of the High Court is appointed in accordance with a policy to ensure that Chief Justices are from outside the respective states.
    • Appointment and Transfer of Judges:
      • The CJI and the senior-most judges of the Supreme Court collectively decide on the appointment and transfer of judges, ensuring judicial independence and preventing executive interference.

    Removal of Judges in the Higher Judiciary:

    • Impeachment Process:
      • Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts can only be removed by impeachment, which requires a motion signed by 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs.
      • The impeachment motion is investigated by a three-member judicial committee, and if the committee finds merit in the allegations, Parliament votes on the motion.
      • A 2/3rd majority is needed in both Houses for removal.
      • Parliament can, however, consider a motion to impeach a judge according to the procedure laid down in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
    • In-House Inquiry Process:
      • The CJI can initiate an in-house inquiry in the event of serious allegations against a judge. This process involves the Chief Justice of the High Court submitting a report, and if the allegations are deemed serious, a three-member committee is constituted to investigate the matter.
      • If the committee recommends removal, the CJI may advise the judge to resign. If the judge refuses, their judicial work is withdrawn, and impeachment proceedings may be initiated.

    Historical Impeachment Efforts:

    • No judge has been impeached in India, though attempts have been made, including the failed motions against Justice V Ramaswami (1993) and Justice Soumitra Sen (2011).
    • Justice V Ramaswami (1993): Faced impeachment for financial misconduct, but the motion failed in the Lok Sabha.
    • Justice Soumitra Sen (2011): Resigned after impeachment proceedings for misappropriating funds.
    • Justice K Veeraswamy: Chief Justice of Madras HC, investigated for corruption but challenged the investigation. The case remained unresolved until his death in 2010.
    • Justice Shamit Mukherjee (2003), Justice Nirmal Yadav (2008), and Justice SN Shukla (2017): Faced criminal charges for corruption after in-house inquiries found substantial evidence against them.

     

    [UPSC 2019] Consider the following statements:
    1. The motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India cannot be rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
    2. The Constitution of India defines and gives details of what Constitutes ‘incapacity and proved misbehaviour’ of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India.
    3. The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India are given in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
    4. If the motion for the impeachment of a Judge is taken up for voting, the law requires the motion to be backed by each House of the Parliament and supported by a majority of total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of total members of that House present and voting.Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
    (a) 1 and 3 only (b) 2 only (c) 3 and 4 only (d) 1, 3 and 4

     

  • Judge’s transfer is not related to ‘rumours’: SC

    Why in the News?

    On Friday (March 21, 2025), the Supreme Court stated that false information and rumours were being spread about an “incident” at the home of Delhi High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma, suggesting that this led to his transfer. The Court clarified that the transfer decision was unrelated to the incident.

    What was the Supreme Court’s response to the reports regarding the incident at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence?

    • Rejection of Misinformation: The Supreme Court dismissed media reports about a “huge pile of cash” being recovered during a fire at Justice Varma’s residence. Example: It stated that rumours and misinformation were being spread, clarifying that the reports were not verified facts.
    • Clarification on Transfer Proposal: The Court confirmed that Justice Varma’s transfer to Allahabad High Court was an independent decision, unrelated to the in-house enquiry into the incident. Example: It emphasized that the transfer process had been initiated separately and was being reviewed by the Collegium before the enquiry even began.
    • Confidentiality of the Enquiry Process: The Supreme Court maintained that the in-house enquiry was confidential and aimed at preserving judicial integrity. Example: The Court cited the 2015 Additional District and Sessions Judge ‘X’ vs. Registrar General, MP High Court judgment, which ensures fairness in such proceedings.

    Removal of Judges in the Higher Judiciary:

    • Impeachment Process:
      • Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts can only be removed by impeachment, which requires a motion signed by 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs.
      • The impeachment motion is investigated by a three-member judicial committee, and if the committee finds merit in the allegations, Parliament votes on the motion.
      • A 2/3rd majority is needed in both Houses for removal.
      • Parliament can, however, consider a motion to impeach a judge according to the procedure laid down in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

    What is in-house enquiry?

    • The CJI can initiate an in-house inquiry in the event of serious allegations against a judge. This process involves the Chief Justice of the High Court submitting a report, and if the allegations are deemed serious, a three-member committee is constituted to investigate the matter.
    • If the committee recommends removal, the CJI may advise the judge to resign. If the judge refuses, their judicial work is withdrawn, and impeachment proceedings may be initiated.

    What is the legal precedence of it? 

    • Justice V. Ramaswami Case (1991): One of the first instances where an impeachment motion was attempted against a sitting Supreme Court judge, highlighting the importance of in-house mechanisms before formal parliamentary action.
    • Additional District and Sessions Judge ‘X’ vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh (2015): This case outlined the two-stage procedure for in-house enquiries, emphasizing exclusion of bias and ensuring due process in judicial investigations.
    • In re: Justice C.S. Karnan (2017): The Supreme Court invoked its contempt jurisdiction against a sitting High Court judge, Justice C.S. Karnan, highlighting the limitations of in-house procedures when misconduct disrupts judicial functioning.

    Why did the Supreme Court emphasize that the transfer proposal for Justice Yashwant Varma was independent of the in-house enquiry?

    • To Prevent Misinterpretation of Judicial Transfers: The Supreme Court clarified that the transfer was part of routine administrative decisions, not a punitive action linked to the enquiry. Example: Justice Varma’s transfer was to his parent High Court (Allahabad), where he would be ninth in seniority, a common practice for judges.
    • To Uphold the Collegium’s Credibility: The Court ensured that the Collegium’s decisions were based on judicial requirements, not external events. Example: The Collegium followed its standard procedure of consulting judges and the Chief Justices of the concerned High Courts before deciding on the transfer.
    • To Avoid Pre-Judgment of the Enquiry Outcome: If the transfer was seen as linked to the enquiry, it could imply guilt before a formal investigation was concluded. Example: The Court confirmed that the Delhi High Court Chief Justice had initiated the enquiry separately, even before the Collegium met on March 20, 2025.
    • To Maintain Judicial Independence and Fairness: Judges must be free from undue influence, and linking transfers to allegations could undermine judicial autonomy. Example: The Court cited the in-house enquiry framework, which ensures that any probe follows due process before any action is taken.
    • To Protect the Reputation of the Judiciary: Associating the transfer with allegations could harm the judge’s integrity and create unnecessary controversy. Example: The Supreme Court press note stressed that the transfer decision was made on administrative grounds, separate from any enquiry findings.

    What is the process of judicial transfers in India? 

    • Initiation by the Chief Justice of India (CJI): The transfer of High Court judges is initiated by the CJI in consultation with the Collegium, which includes the four senior-most Supreme Court judges. Example: In 2021, Justice Sanjib Banerjee was transferred from the Madras High Court to the Meghalaya High Court, reportedly due to administrative reasons.
    • Consultation with the Government and Affected Judges: The Union Law Ministry processes the recommendation and seeks the President’s approval. The judge being transferred is consulted, but their consent is not required. Example: Justice Akil Kureshi’s transfer from Gujarat High Court to Tripura High Court in 2019 sparked debates about judicial independence.
    • Final Approval by the President of India: After receiving recommendations from the CJI and the Collegium, the President issues a formal order for the transfer under Article 222 of the Constitution. Example: Justice Vijaya Kapse-Tahilramani resigned in 2019 after being transferred from the Madras High Court to the Meghalaya High Court.

    How does the in-house enquiry procedure against sitting High Court judges ensure fairness and prevent bias?

    • Two-Stage Investigation Process: The procedure involves an initial assessment by the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, followed by a deeper probe if required, ensuring a systematic and impartial review. Example: In Justice Yashwant Varma’s case, the Delhi High Court Chief Justice first examined the allegations before forwarding a report to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for further action.
    • Principles of Natural Justice: The accused judge is given a fair opportunity to present their defense before any decision is made, preventing arbitrary actions. Example: If the CJI determines a deeper probe is needed, a three-member committee (two Chief Justices and one High Court judge) is formed, ensuring multiple perspectives in the investigation.
    • Confidentiality to Protect Integrity: The enquiry remains confidential to prevent media trials and undue reputational damage before conclusions are drawn. Example: The Supreme Court’s press note stated that the findings of the Delhi High Court’s in-house enquiry would be examined privately before deciding on further action.

    Way forward: 

    • Strengthening Transparency and Communication: The judiciary should proactively address misinformation by issuing timely clarifications and making non-confidential aspects of administrative decisions more accessible to prevent speculation and misinterpretation.
    • Enhancing Institutional Safeguards: The in-house enquiry mechanism should be periodically reviewed to ensure procedural robustness, fairness, and adaptability while maintaining judicial integrity and independence.

    Mains PYQ:

    Question: “Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democracy”. Comment. (2023)

    Reason: The proposed transfer of a High Court judge, especially amidst “rumours” touches upon the independence of the judiciary. While the Supreme Court clarifies the transfer is unrelated to the “incident” and in-house inquiry, questions about maintaining judicial independence in the face of potential external pressures or perceptions remain pertinent.

  • [10th March 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Closing the gender gap in the higher judiciary

    PYQ Relevance:

    Q)  Discuss the desirability of greater representation to women in the higher judiciary to ensure diversity, equity and inclusiveness. (UPSC CSE 2021)

     

    Mentor’s Comment: UPSC mains have always focused on the women in the higher judiciary (2021), and appointment of judges of higher judiciary (2017).

    Women in law have made significant progress in India over the past 100 years. Cornelia Sorabji became the first woman lawyer to practice in 1924. Since then, the number of women lawyers has increased, with many becoming Senior Advocates and judges in lower courts. However, their representation in the higher judiciary remains very low.

    Today’s editorial highlights the reasons for the low representation of women in the Indian judiciary. This content is useful for GS Papers 1 and 2 in the UPSC Mains exam.

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    The gender gap in India’s judiciary is evident in the low representation of women, especially in higher courts.

    What is the status of women in the Indian Judiciary? 

    • Supreme Court: Women make up about 9.3% of judges in the Supreme Court, with only a few women judges currently serving.
    • High Courts: As of August 2024, women constitute about 14% of High Court judges, with only 106 women judges out of a total of 754 judges across all High Courts. There are only two women Chief Justices among all High Courts.
    • Subordinate Judiciary: Women have a higher representation in subordinate courts, constituting about 36.3% of judges as of recent data.

    What are the main reasons for the underrepresentation of women in the higher judiciary in India?

    • Systemic Gender Bias and Stereotypes: Women are often viewed as less capable of handling complex legal matters or leadership roles. Example: Justice Indira Banerjee, a former Supreme Court judge, highlighted how women must work harder to prove their competence compared to male counterparts.
    • Opaque Collegium System: The collegium lacks transparency in the selection process and does not prioritize gender diversity. Example: Since 2021, 28 judges have been appointed to the Supreme Court, but none of them have been women.
    • Limited Senior Women Advocates: Fewer women reach the level of Senior Advocate, which reduces the pool of candidates for higher judicial positions. Example: Only one woman, Justice Indu Malhotra, has been elevated directly from the Bar to the Supreme Court in its history.
    • Delayed Appointments and Age Disparity: Women are appointed to the Bench later than men, limiting their tenure and chances of becoming Chief Justices. Example: The average appointment age for women is 53 years, while for men, it is 51.8 years.
    • Government’s Selective Confirmation: Women’s names recommended by the collegium are more likely to be delayed or rejected by the government. Example: Since 2020, nine women were recommended for High Court appointments, but five of these names were rejected.

    What are the steps taken by the Indian government?

    • Reservation for Women in Lower Judiciary: Several states like Bihar, Rajasthan, and Andhra Pradesh have introduced 30-35% reservations for women in the lower judiciary to encourage female participation at the entry level. Example: Bihar introduced a 35% reservation for women in judicial services to increase their representation.
    • Promotion of Gender Sensitization: The government supports initiatives to train judges and judicial staff on gender sensitivity and equality. Example: The National Judicial Academy conducts gender sensitization workshops for judicial officers.
    • Encouragement of Collegium Recommendations: The government has urged the collegium to consider gender diversity when recommending names for judicial appointments. Example: The Law Minister has emphasized the need for more women judges in parliamentary discussions.
    • Increased Representation in Policy Discussions: The government includes women’s voices in law commissions and judicial reform committees. Example: Justice R. Banumathi was part of the committee on criminal law reforms focusing on gender issues.

    How can the collegium system be reformed to ensure greater transparency and gender diversity in judicial appointments? 

    • Establish Clear and Transparent Selection Criteria: Implement publicly available guidelines specifying the qualifications, experience, and evaluation methods for judicial appointments. Example: The United Kingdom’s Judicial Appointments Commission uses clear, published criteria to promote transparency and diversity in judicial selection.
    • Mandate Gender Representation in Recommendations: Introduce a formal quota or commitment to ensuring that at least one-third of the recommended candidates are women. Example: Countries like Canada follow a diversity mandate to ensure that judicial appointments reflect gender and ethnic representation.
    • Open Application Process for Judicial Aspirants: Allow eligible lawyers to apply for judgeship through a transparent process rather than relying solely on collegium nominations. Example: South Africa invites applications publicly and conducts open interviews, ensuring broader participation, including women candidates.

    Way forward: 

    • Institutionalize Gender Diversity in Judicial Appointments: Implement a binding policy requiring the collegium to prioritize gender diversity, ensuring a minimum percentage of women in judicial recommendations. This can be reinforced by periodic audits and public reports on gender representation.
    • Mentorship and Capacity Building for Women Lawyers: Establish structured mentorship programs to support women lawyers in advancing to senior positions and encourage their participation in judicial roles. This should include targeted training for leadership and judicial skills to expand the pool of qualified women candidates.