SCBA urges reforms in collegium, seeks merit-based judge appointments

SCBA president wrote to the CJI and Law Minister, citing flaws in the collegium system and warning that delays in reform erode judicial integrity and public trust

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has raised concerns over the collegium system of judicial appointments, saying that while it was designed to protect judicial independence, it has “inadvertently given rise to serious challenges.”

 

SCBA president and senior advocate Vikas Singh said the system routinely ignores qualified lawyers from the Supreme Court bar for elevation to their home state High Courts, despite their extensive exposure to national jurisprudence. 

In a letter dated September 12 to Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, Singh urged finalisation of the memorandum of procedure (MoP) and called for a “transparent, equitable, and merit-driven” framework for appointing judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts. 

 

He stressed that delays in reforming the current system were weakening both judicial integrity and public trust. 

Structural flaws and wasted talent

 

“The prevailing Collegium mechanism, while designed to preserve judicial independence, has inadvertently created significant challenges. Its structural flaws demand urgent and comprehensive correction.

 

First, it arbitrarily ignores the vast talent pool within the Supreme Court Bar for elevation to their respective home state High Courts. These practitioners, whose exposure to national jurisprudence should be viewed as a superior qualification, are being systematically overlooked. This not only wastes valuable judicial talent but also undermines the core principle of merit-based selection,” Singh said.

 

Under-representation of women

 

The SCBA president also highlighted the poor representation of women in the higher judiciary. Citing official figures, he said, “This is not an abstract concern but a reality borne out by hard data. As of February 2024, women constituted merely 9.5 per cent of the sanctioned strength in High Courts and a stark 2.94 per cent in the Supreme Court. This is a glaring indictment of systemic exclusion, where the tyranny of a presumed meritocracy masks a deeper reliance on informal networks and patronage.”

 

Singh criticised the current focus on arguing counsels, noting that briefing lawyers and juniors are often left out despite their crucial role in preparing cases. “To elevate only the visible face is to perpetuate a flawed understanding of competence,” he said.

 

Call for reforming the MoP

 

He emphasised SC had already set out a roadmap for revising the MoP, describing those directions as actionable rather than aspirational. Any further delay, he said, was indefensible.

 

The SCBA proposed several reforms, including the creation of permanent secretariats in every High Court and in the Supreme Court to maintain data on candidates and vacancies.

 

He also called for a transparent, application-based process. “The current informal system must be replaced with a formal process where applications are invited publicly. This ensures every deserving candidate, including those from the Supreme Court Bar, is considered on demonstrable merit through a structured mechanism,” Singh added.

 

He further suggested that the MoP should publish objective criteria such as minimum age, years of practice, reported judgments, and pro bono work before candidates are elevated to the higher judiciary.