Supreme Court Justice Bhuyan calls for more transparency in judicial appointments

Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has voiced concerns regarding the transparency of the collegium system, questioning the recent practice of not providing reasons for judicial recommendations. Justice Bhuyan observed that three recent Supreme Court collegium statements lacked justifications for recommending elevations, a departure from the earlier trend where detailed reasons accompanied such resolutions.

“

Is this a step back from the principle of transparency?

Speaking at an event where a report on the Judicial Transparency Index was released, Justice Bhuyan stated that withholding reasons is a disservice to deserving judges. He warned that this opacity could create an environment where individuals who might make unconstitutional remarks or exhibit problematic behavior could enter the judiciary. He alluded to a controversial speech by a former high court judge, which included remarks perceived as anti-minority.

Justice Bhuyan emphasized the importance of transparency, noting that while the judiciary has embraced publicity in its adjudicative functions, it has been more hesitant to extend this principle to its own internal processes. He highlighted that deliberations within the collegium remain confidential, and reasons for rejecting or deferring recommendations are seldom fully disclosed. Furthermore, the criteria used are not codified in any publicly accessible document, unlike the Memorandum of Procedure.

“

By withholding reasons, we also create space for individuals to enter the judiciary who may later describe groups of people as ‘ants’ and make other remarks that are wholly unconstitutional and contrary to the values of the Constitution.

Advocating for open courts, Justice Bhuyan stated that public observation of judicial behavior, processes, and case outcomes fosters reasonable public perceptions of the judiciary. He also addressed concerns about the regulation of judicial proceedings on social media, clarifying that the Chief Justice of India-led bench's move does not retreat from live-streaming. Instead, the concern is about decontextualized fragments of oral exchanges and observations being circulated with sensational captions, potentially harming the reputation of judges, advocates, and litigants.

“

There is no doubt that open courts make it possible for the public to develop reasonable perceptions about the judiciary, by enabling them to directly observe judicial behaviour, the processes and outcome of cases.