Collegium System of Judicial Appointments
Indian Polity › Higher Judiciary: Supreme Court and High Courts · Topic 17.12
The collegium system, evolved through the Judges cases of 1981, 1993, 1998 and 2015, makes the Chief Justice of India and senior judges the effective recommending body for appointing and transferring higher judges, though the Constitution does not mention it.
5 min read · UPSC Prelims · Polity · Higher Judiciary
At a Glance
- What it is The judiciary-led method of appointing and transferring judges
- Origin Second Judges case (1993) and Third Judges case (1998)
- Not in The Constitution
- Restored By the Fourth Judges case (2015)
- Exam link UPSC Prelims, Polity: Higher Judiciary
Where Does It Fit?
This is the twelfth topic of the category on the Higher Judiciary. The collegium system is a procedure invented by the judiciary, through the Judges cases, for appointing judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts. The word does not appear in the Constitution.
The Four Judges Cases
| Case | Year | Ruling |
|---|---|---|
| First Judges case (S.P. Gupta v. Union of India) | 1981 | Consultation does not mean concurrence; it only implies exchange of views |
| Second Judges case (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India) | 1993 | Overruled the First; consultation means concurrence; the President acts on the advice of the Chief Justice of India, after he considers the views of two seniormost colleagues; the seniormost judge should be Chief Justice |
| Third Judges case (In re Presidential Reference) | 1998 | Opinion on a reference under Article 143: the consultation process requires a collegium of the Chief Justice and four seniormost judges; if two give an adverse opinion, the recommendation should not be sent |
| Fourth Judges case (NJAC case) | 2015 | Struck down the 99th Amendment and NJAC Act as violating judicial independence, restored the collegium and ordered consideration of improvements |
How the Collegium Works
After the Second Judges case and the Advisory Opinion of the Third Judges case, a Memorandum of Procedure for appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts was formulated. This procedure, invented by the judiciary, is known as the collegium system. For Supreme Court appointments, the Chief Justice of India consults a collegium of four seniormost judges of the Supreme Court. For high court appointments, the Chief Justice of India consults a collegium of two seniormost Supreme Court judges, and the Chief Justice of the high court and the Governor are also consulted by the President. For transfers of high court judges, the Chief Justice of India consults, in addition to the four seniormost judges, the chief justices of the two high courts concerned. Recommendations made without complying with the consultation norms are not binding on the government.
Who Is Consulted for What
| Decision | Who is consulted under the Judges cases |
|---|---|
| Appointment of the Chief Justice of India | The seniormost judge of the Supreme Court should be appointed (1993) |
| Appointment of other Supreme Court judges | Chief Justice of India after consulting a collegium of four seniormost judges (1998) |
| Appointment of High Court Chief Justice | President after consulting the CJI and the Governor |
| Appointment of other High Court judges | CJI with a collegium of two seniormost Supreme Court judges; also the high court Chief Justice and the Governor |
| Transfer of High Court judges | CJI with the four seniormost judges and the chief justices of the two high courts concerned |
These rules sum up how consultation was turned into judicial primacy. A recommendation of the Chief Justice of India made without following the consultation norms is not binding on the government, so the process is part of the validity of the recommendation and not just a courtesy.
Constitutional Text and Judicial Interpretation
Article 124(2) says the Supreme Court judges are appointed by the President after consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts as the President deems necessary, and the Chief Justice is consulted for other judges. Article 217 similarly provides consultation for high court judges. The Court changed the meaning of ‘consultation’ in Articles 124(2) and 217(1) to ‘concurrence’ in 1993. The effect is that although the President formally appoints, the advice of the Chief Justice of India is binding.
The seniority convention was also reinstated: from 1950 to 1973 the seniormost judge was appointed Chief Justice, a convention broken in 1973 by superseding three judges (J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde and A.N. Grover, who resigned after the Kesavananda Bharati judgment) and in 1977 by superseding H.R. Khanna. The Second Judges case restored the rule that the seniormost judge should be appointed Chief Justice of India.
Why Is This Topic Important?
- Four cases A standard Prelims list
- Mains debate Independence versus accountability
- Links to NJAC Leads to 17.13
What Came Next?
The next topic covers the National Judicial Appointments Commission and its invalidation.
Key People and Terms
- Collegium Group of senior judges recommending appointments
- Memorandum of Procedure Guidelines for appointments
- Concurrence Binding agreement
- Supersession Bypassing senior judge
- Consultation Interpreted as concurrence
Exam Corner
Points to Remember
- First Judges: 1981; Second: 1993; Third: 1998; Fourth: 2015.
- SC collegium: CJI and four seniormost judges.
- HC appointment: CJI and two seniormost judges.
- Not in the Constitution.
Do Not Confuse With
- Four and two judges Four for SC appointments and transfers; two for HC appointments
- Third Judges case and a judgment An opinion on a reference
- Consultation and concurrence The Second case changed the meaning
Memory Hook
1981 consult, 1993 concur, 1998 four judges, 2015 collegium back.
Mains Angle
Questions on this topic usually ask about transparency and independence. Use these points to add depth.
- Judicial primacy Judiciary-led appointment
- Constitutional silence Collegium absent from the text
- Executive role Limited to reconsideration
- Reform debate Court invited improvements
A Question You May Face
An original practice question, not a past paper question.
“Discuss the evolution of the collegium system and the debate over judicial appointments.”
How to Answer
- Introduction Articles 124 and 217.
- Cases Four.
- Working Collegium composition.
- Conclusion Reform debate.
GS Relevance
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the collegium system?
The collegium system is the procedure invented by the judiciary through the Judges cases for appointing and transferring judges of the Supreme Court and high courts, under which senior judges of the Supreme Court recommend names. It is not mentioned in the Constitution.
How did the Second Judges case change appointments?
In 1993 the Supreme Court held that consultation means concurrence, so the President must act on the advice of the Chief Justice of India, who consults two seniormost colleagues, and the seniormost judge should be appointed Chief Justice of India.
What did the Third Judges case say?
In the 1998 opinion on a presidential reference, the Supreme Court held that the Chief Justice of India must consult a collegium of four seniormost judges for Supreme Court appointments, and that if two give an adverse opinion, the recommendation should not be sent.
Who forms the collegium for high court appointments?
For high court judges, the Chief Justice of India consults a collegium of two seniormost Supreme Court judges. For transfers, the Chief Justice of India consults the collegium of four seniormost judges and the chief justices of the two high courts concerned.
Why is the collegium system criticised?
The system is judge-led and the Constitution does not mention it, so critics question transparency and accountability, while supporters see it as safeguarding judicial independence. The Fourth Judges case invited consideration of measures for its improved working.
PYQ Practice — Statement Analysis
1 The collegium system is mentioned in the Constitution.
Invented by the judiciary.
2 The Second Judges case held that consultation means concurrence.
In 1993.
3 The First Judges case was decided in 1993.
1981.
4 The Third Judges case was an advisory opinion.
On a presidential reference.
Related Topics
Browse the full Indian Polity index