In a statement issued after the meeting, the association claimed that the Collegium has been suggesting names of advocates who have never practiced at the Allahabad High Court.
Prayagraj, April 22 – The Bar Association of the Allahabad High Court has strongly opposed the alleged nepotism in the appointment of judges. In a firm stand against the current selection process, the association passed a resolution during an emergency meeting held on Monday under the leadership of Bar Association President Anil Tiwari.
The Bar Association has raised serious concerns about the functioning of the High Court’s Collegium, especially in the way it recommends names for judgeship.
In a statement issued after the meeting, the association claimed that the Collegium has been suggesting names of advocates who have never practiced at the Allahabad High Court.
“The question is how do the honourable judges of the Collegium assess the ability of such advocates who have never argued before them,” the statement said.
According to the Bar, recommending advocates without first-hand knowledge of their work raises doubts about the transparency and merit of the selection process.
“This means that the names of such advocates are recommended without testing their merit.”
The association added that this system casts doubt on the fairness of judicial appointments and reflects poorly on the existing legal talent at the Allahabad High Court.
“This process undoubtedly raises questions on the fairness of the appointment process and whether there is a shortage of qualified advocates in the Allahabad High Court,” it said.
Moreover, the Bar Association alleged that only those advocates are being recommended who have personal or family connections with sitting judges or powerful advocates.
“It has also been observed that only the names of such advocates are recommended who either belong to the family of an honourable Justice or belong to the family of an influential advocate. No consultation is done with the Bar Association in this appointment process,” the statement added.
Terming the process as unjust and exclusionary, the association stated that the Bar, despite being a vital stakeholder in the judicial system, is kept out of the consultation and decision-making processes. To express its strong objection, the Bar Association has decided to send this resolution to all key authorities and legal institutions across the country.
“The High Court Bar Association, Allahabad, strongly opposes this process and has decided to send a copy of this proposal to all the Justices, the prime minister, the Union law and justice minister, the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh and all the Bar Associations of the country to register its protest,” the statement read.
Earlier, A senior member of the Supreme Court collegium has suggested that the children of sitting or former judges should face stricter criteria for being appointed as High Court judges. This proposal follows an earlier suggestion by a top Supreme Court judge to stay such appointments for a few years.
Many lawyers have long complained that first-generation lawyers are often overlooked when the selection pool for High Court judges includes the children of sitting or former judges, who are often given preference.
According to a report by the Times of India, the senior collegium member argued that while judicial appointments must be based on merit and suitability, it would be unfair to completely exclude such candidates.
“He also felt that it could deprive the constitutional courts of the talent it needs to deal with litigation, which is getting complex with the passage of time.”
The bench, consisting of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan, was displeased with this claim and asked, “How many judges can you name whose offspring got the title?”
The bench called the allegations “scurrilous and unfounded” and expressed their serious discontent with the lawyer’s plea against the granting of senior advocate titles to certain lawyers.
The Supreme Court Collegium in India manages the appointment and transfer of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. This system created through important court rulings, especially in the Second and Third Judges Cases (1993 and 1998), to ensure the judiciary stays independent. The Collegium includes the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the four most senior judges of the Supreme Court. For High Court matters, it includes the CJI and the two most senior judges.
The Collegium suggests names for appointments and transfers, which are sent to the President of India for approval. Although the government can raise concerns or ask for reconsideration, the Collegium’s decision is usually final. While this system is praised for keeping the judiciary independent, it has been criticized for being unclear and not open enough. This has led to discussions about reforms, such as the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), which was later rejected by the Supreme Court in 2015.
The issue of appointing judges’ relatives to High Court positions is complex and often linked to debates about judicial accountability, favoritism, and independence.
