Sibal made these comments during a lecture organized by the Sikkim Judicial Academy at its Auditorium Hall, focusing particularly on the Collegium system used for appointing judges to the higher judiciary. He argued that appointments made by the Collegium are not always merit-based, leading to issues in the judicial system.
NEW DELHI: Senior Advocate and President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Kapil Sibal, expressed on Saturday (26th Oct) that the judgments of highly liberal judges often change once they ascend to the role of Chief Justice in any High Court.
Sibal, who also serves as a Member of Parliament, remarked that this shift occurs because Chief Justices often aspire to become Supreme Court judges.
He stated,
“Highly liberal judges who become Chief Justices tend to have their judgments subtly altered, in my experience, due to human nature. The desire to reach the Supreme Court is undeniable.”
Sibal made these comments during a lecture organized by the Sikkim Judicial Academy at its Auditorium Hall, focusing particularly on the Collegium system used for appointing judges to the higher judiciary. He argued that appointments made by the Collegium are not always merit-based, leading to issues in the judicial system.
He noted,
“And that is where the problem arises. The (HC) Chief Justice looks up to the Supreme Court judges. And that is reflected in their orders, I’m sorry to say that,” he added.
He explained that the idea behind the Collegium system was well-intentioned.
“At the time, the concern was that lawyers and judges were seeking political favors for appointments, showing deference to those in power. To address this, the Collegium system was introduced, with the belief that Supreme Court and High Court judges are best suited to decide which lawyers should be elevated to the Bench. It was a good idea,” he said.
He explained, “Now, lawyers are turning to judges for their appointments, and High Court judges seek elevation from Supreme Court judges. The criteria for determining which Chief Justice gets appointed to the Supreme Court remain unclear.”
Furthermore, Sibal pointed out that when a Chief Justice is promoted to the Supreme Court, they often recommend names for elevation, which perpetuates the cycle.
“We need to acknowledge this reality if we wish to reform the system; sweeping it under the rug won’t help,”
he added.
He highlighted that, in this context, High Court judges effectively become subordinate to the Supreme Court, even though the Constitution does not mandate such a hierarchy.
“High Court judges aspire to rise through the ranks, just as judges in subordinate courts look to the High Court for advancement,”
he concluded.
