The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has appealed to Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal. They urged the finalisation of the MoP, calling for a “transparent, equitable, and merit-driven” framework for judicial appointments.
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) reached out to Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, urging the finalization of the memorandum of procedure (MoP) and the establishment of a “transparent, equitable, and merit-driven” framework for appointing judges in both the Supreme Court and high courts.
In a letter dated September 12, SCBA president and senior advocate Vikas Singh highlighted the structural issues within the current collegium system, stating that delays in reform are eroding both judicial integrity and public trust.
He noted that while the collegium was intended to protect judicial independence, it has inadvertently led to significant challenges.
Singh pointed out that the collegium often overlooks qualified lawyers from the Supreme Court bar for elevation to high courts in their home states, despite their extensive experience in national jurisprudence.
He stated,
“The prevailing Collegium mechanism, while designed to preserve judicial independence, has inadvertently created significant challenges. Its structural flaws demand urgent and comprehensive correction. First, it arbitrarily ignores the vast talent pool within the Supreme Court Bar for elevation to their respective home state High Courts. These practitioners, whose exposure to national jurisprudence should be viewed as a superior qualification, are being systematically overlooked. This not only wastes valuable judicial talent but also undermines the core principle of merit-based selection.”
He also raised concerns about the alarming under-representation of women in the judiciary, citing official statistics.
He explained,
“This is not an abstract concern but a reality borne out by hard data. As of February 2024, women constituted merely 9.5% of the sanctioned strength in High Courts and a stark 2.94% in the Supreme Court. This is a glaring indictment of systemic exclusion, where the tyranny of a presumed meritocracy masks a deeper reliance on informal networks and patronage,”
Regarding the marginalization of briefing lawyers, Singh emphasized that the current process tends to focus almost entirely on arguing counsels, neglecting briefing lawyers and juniors, who are often the “unseen architects” of litigation.
He wrote to the CJI,
“To elevate only the visible face is to perpetuate a flawed understanding of competence,”
Singh pointed out that the Supreme Court has already established a reform blueprint for revising the MoP, stressing that these directions are not merely aspirational but actionable.
He argued that any further delays in implementing them are indefensible.
To propose reforms in the MoP, the SCBA suggested the establishment of permanent secretariats in every High Court and the Supreme Court to maintain candidate and vacancy data, thereby ensuring institutional memory.
Singh advocated for a transparent application-based process, stating,
“The current informal system must be replaced with a formal process where applications are invited publicly. This ensures every deserving candidate, including those from the Supreme Court Bar, is considered on demonstrable merit through a structured mechanism.”
He also recommended that the MoP include provisions for publishing objective criteria such as minimum age, years of practice, reported judgments, and pro bono work for evaluating candidates prior to their elevation to the higher judiciary.