Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara delivers a sharp critique of India’s judicial appointment process, alleging entrenched nepotism within the Collegium system and warning that judicial independence has given way to opacity, favoritism, and institutional capture. He slams how Four-Fifths of High Court CJs are appointed
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The judiciary in India has long been the guardian of the Constitution, but recent trends in judicial appointments raise serious questions about transparency, nepotism, and accountability. Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara has highlighted how the Collegium system, introduced in the 1990s, has concentrated power in the judiciary and fostered networks of favoritism.
Four- fifths of the CJs of High Courts are sons, sons- in -law, nephews, juniors of Chief Justices, Judges, Attorney Generals, Advocate Generals, Ministers et al.
Mathews J Nedumpara posted on twitter
The Constitutional Framework of Judicial Appointments
Under the Indian Constitution, the President, the executive branch, appoints judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. These appointments are made in consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and other senior judges. For High Courts, the process also involves the Chief Justice of the High Court and the Governor of the respective state. The executive, accountable to Parliament and the people, was entrusted with this power, with consultation serving as a guiding principle, not a constraint.
In 1993, the Supreme Court, through public interest litigation (PIL), created a new appointing authority: the Judicial Collegium. According to Mathews J. Nedumpara, this marked a radical shift, as adjudicating courts assumed the power to appoint judges, traditionally a role of the executive. This was formalized in the Judges-2 case and further solidified in 1999 through the Judges-3 case.
The court justified this by stating that judicial independence, a “basic structure” of the Constitution, depends on the judiciary having primacy in appointments. However, Nedumpara argues that this concentration of power has made the judiciary an opaque and self-perpetuating institution.
Nepotism and Favoritism in Appointments
Justice Krishna Iyer foresaw the consequences of the Collegium system, predicting nepotism, favoritism, and the rise of an oligarchic judicial structure. Mathews J. Nedumpara notes that his predictions have largely been validated: a significant percentage of judges in High Courts and the Supreme Court are from legal families or closely connected to senior judges, ministers, or advocates.
- High Courts: Out of 25 Chief Justices, 7 are sons or sons-in-law of former judges, 4 are sons of advocates, 9 are juniors of former judges or ministers, and only 5 are first-generation lawyers.
- Supreme Court: The majority of recent Chief Justices share similar familial and professional networks.
This trend is not limited to judges alone. Senior advocates appointed by the court often hail from similar networks, creating an elite club based on connections rather than merit.
With the judiciary assuming powers even beyond those claimed by Parliament, including accountability over purely executive and legislative functions, the balance of power has shifted. Mathews J. Nedumpara warns that this undermines the executive’s role and reduces public oversight, potentially eroding confidence in the judicial system.
While judicial independence is vital, it must be balanced with transparency, meritocracy, and public accountability. According to Mathews J. Nedumpara, the Collegium system in its current form risks fostering nepotism and oligarchy. Reforms that ensure wider representation and reduce familial or political favoritism are essential to preserve the integrity of India’s judiciary.
READ ATTACHMENT
