Former CJI B R Gavai said the collegium system is currently the most suitable for India despite its flaws. He also urged the government to implement the National Litigation Policy to reduce court pendency.
Former Chief Justice of India Justice B R Gavai on Sunday said that the collegium system is currently the most suitable system for judicial appointments in India, even though it may not be perfect. He also emphasized that the government should seriously think about implementing the long-pending National Litigation Policy to help reduce the huge backlog of cases in courts across the country.
He was speaking at the valedictory session of the Supreme Court Bar Association’s first National Conference-2026 titled “Reimagining Judicial Governance: Strengthening Institutions for Democratic Justice,” where he spoke on important issues like judicial appointments, pendency of cases, environmental balance, judicial transfers, and the role of the judiciary in protecting citizens’ rights.
Speaking about the collegium system, Justice Gavai clearly stated that no system can be perfect, but based on his experience, the collegium system works best for India at present. He explained how the system actually functions and said that it is not arbitrary, as many people believe.
He said that the process involves recommendations from the High Court level, inputs from the government and intelligence agencies, and then a final decision by the Supreme Court Collegium.
He said,
“An issue was raised with regard to the functioning of the collegium. I won’t say that the collegium system is a foolproof system. There can’t be a perfect system. Every system has its advantages and disadvantages. But after working for so many years, I find that the collegium system, at least for the time being, is the best suited for our country,”
Gavai said.
He further explained the procedure followed in judicial appointments and clarified that the collegium does not take decisions randomly. He said,
“The collegium doesn’t work arbitrarily. The names of the judges are recommended by the Chief Justice of the High Court and the collegium of the two most senior judges, and thereafter, it goes to the central government. The inputs of the central government, the intelligence department and everybody are gathered, and thereafter, the Supreme Court Collegium takes a final decision. And even after the names are sent, if the government and the executive have any issues, those issues are addressed to the collegium. The collegium considers those issues, and thereafter, it takes a final call,”
he added.
Justice Gavai also raised concern over the delay in judicial appointments, especially in High Courts. He pointed out that even when the collegium reiterates a name for the second time, the appointment is still not cleared in some cases, which raises serious concerns about the appointment process and judicial functioning.
He said,
“But I’m sorry to say that there are various names which, even on the second recommendation, are not yet cleared by the executive. So, it’s not a blame game, but I must flag this issue,”
he said.
He further added that the executive must consider whether it is bound by Supreme Court judgments which state that once a name is reiterated for the second time by the collegium, the appointment must be made.
Talking about the status of High Court judges, Justice Gavai said that High Court judges are not inferior to Supreme Court judges as both are constitutional functionaries. However, he also spoke about the issue of transfer of judges and said that in some situations, transfers become necessary for maintaining judicial discipline and consistency in law.
He raised an important question regarding judges who repeatedly go against Supreme Court judgments and said,
“I ask a question if a particular judge defies the judgments of the Supreme Court on more than one occasion, and takes a view, contrary to the views explained by the Supreme Court in a particular matter, should the collegium remain idle or take corrective steps? Since, Bar is the mother of the judges, I must put this issue with the Bar,”
he added.
Justice Gavai also spoke about the criticism that the judiciary interferes too much in environmental matters and development projects. He clarified that courts do not interfere unnecessarily, but only when required to maintain a balance between environmental protection and sustainable development.
He said,
“It is because of the judgement of the Supreme Court that the issues with regard to pollution have been addressed. But I am not willing to accept the criticism that, in such matters, the judiciary acts as a stumbling block. Whenever necessary, the judiciary has interfered, but wherever the court has found the test of environmental concern and sustainable development be balanced, the court has always ruled in favour of them,”
he said.
He also highlighted another important reason for pendency of cases — the routine practice of the State challenging bail orders even in cases where a person has already completed a major portion of the sentence in jail.
He said,
“So, the question will have to be asked as to who is also equally responsible for the huge pendency,”
he asked.
Justice Gavai then stressed the urgent need for a National Litigation Policy, which has been discussed for many years but has still not been implemented. He said that if the government brings such a policy, it can significantly reduce unnecessary litigation and help in reducing the burden on courts.
He said,
“I think if the executive does something to implement or come up with the national litigation policy, it may really help in reducing the pendency.”
Speaking about the role of the judiciary, Justice Gavai said that courts exercise restraint and only intervene when fundamental rights are violated or when the balance of power between the executive, legislature, and judiciary is disturbed.
He strongly questioned actions like demolition of houses by the executive without proper legal process and said the judiciary cannot remain silent in such situations.
He said,
“When the executive, with its mighty hand, bulldozes the houses of the citizens, on a suspicion that he is a criminal, is the judiciary expected to sit silently and permit the executive to go ahead with such an act, which hits at the rule of all law. That’s a question which is to be considered,”
he said.
In conclusion, Justice Gavai said that the vision of ‘Viksit Bharat’ should not only focus on development but must also ensure that the rule of law is maintained and balanced with growth and governance. He emphasized that strong institutions, judicial independence, timely appointments, and responsible litigation policy are essential for a democratic justice system and for reducing pendency in Indian courts.
Click Here to Read More Reports on CJI Surya Kant
