The Supreme Court Collegium is considering a proposal to limit the appointment of judges’ relatives to judicial positions. This move aims to promote fairness and inclusivity in the judiciary, creating opportunities for first-generation lawyers. Experts believe it could enhance diversity and improve representation from underrepresented communities in constitutional courts. The step reflects a growing emphasis on merit-based selections in India’s judicial system.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court collegium is reportedly considering a proposal to prevent the appointment of close relatives of judges in high courts, according to sources.
This idea, suggested by a senior judge, aims to promote wider acceptance in judicial appointments and address concerns about the influence of familial connections over merit.
Sources indicate that the collegium may instruct high court collegiums to avoid recommending candidates who have parents or close relatives serving as current or former Supreme Court or high court judges.
Read Also: HC Collegium Ignored CJI’s Advice: 2-Judges Moves SC
While this proposal might disqualify some deserving candidates, one source said it could open doors for first-generation lawyers and improve representation of diverse communities in constitutional courts.
However, the source also warned it might unfairly deny judgeships to qualified individuals just because they are related to current or former judges of higher courts.
The current three-member collegium, which recommends names for Supreme Court judgeships, includes Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant. Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Abhay S. Oka are part of the five-member collegium that decides on judgeships in high courts.
Recently, the Supreme Court collegium started holding personal meetings with lawyers and judicial officers recommended for high court positions, moving away from just relying on biodata, written assessments, and intelligence reports. On December 22, the collegium met and recommended around six names to the Centre for high court judgeships in Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Bombay, and Allahabad.
The move to bring back personal interactions gathered support after a controversy involving Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court. At a VHP event in December, he made remarks suggesting India should follow the majority’s wishes, which faced strong criticism. Justice Yadav appeared before the Supreme Court collegium on December 17 to explain his position.
On December 10, the Supreme Court took note of news reports about Justice Yadav’s speech and asked for a report from the Allahabad High Court.
An official statement said,
“The Supreme Court has taken note of newspaper reports of a speech given by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, a sitting judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The details and particulars have been called from the high court and the matter is under consideration.”
As per norms, if a judge faces scrutiny by the Supreme Court collegium over a controversial issue, they are given a chance to present their side before the Chief Justice of India and the collegium.
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.
- Merit vs. Nepotism
- Concern: If relatives are appointed, people may question whether their selection is based on merit or family connections. Favoring relatives over more qualified candidates can harm public trust in the judiciary.
- Counterpoint: Relatives may actually be talented and capable, having grown up in a legal environment. However, even if they are qualified, the appearance of favoritism can still create doubts.
- Judicial Independence
- The judiciary must be free from outside influences, including family ties. Appointing relatives can make the judiciary look like an exclusive “club,” disconnected from the public.
- It may also lead to situations where judges seem biased, especially if they handle cases involving other judges or their families.
- Transparency in Appointments
- In India, judges are appointed through the collegium system, where senior judges recommend names. Critics say this process is not transparent and allows favoritism.
- Reforms like setting up a Judicial Appointments Commission aim to make the process more open and based on merit, reducing the chances of favoritism.
- Legal and Ethical Concerns
- There are no specific rules against appointing relatives, as long as they meet eligibility criteria. But ethical considerations are important because the judiciary should set the highest standards of fairness.
- Some suggest creating clear guidelines to avoid conflicts of interest.
- Public Trust
- Trust in the judiciary is crucial for upholding the rule of law. If appointments seem biased, it can weaken public confidence in the judiciary’s ability to deliver justice fairly.
Why does a judge’s son become a judge?
In India, it is common for children to follow in their parents’ footsteps, with many families running businesses for generations. This trend also extends to the legal profession, where family dominance in the judiciary has been a topic of discussion. It is often seen that the children of well-known judges and senior lawyers hold important positions in the legal field.
Experts believe that family connections play an important role in the legal profession. The children of judges or experienced lawyers often find it easier to enter the field because they have the support of their family’s network and guidance. Many families see the judiciary as the highest form of professional success, which encourages the younger generation to follow the same path.
However, there is a growing demand for more transparency in how judges are appointed. There is a need for an independent and fair system that ensures judges are selected based on merit. India has many law colleges, including 27 National Law Universities (NLUs) that are known for their quality education. Along with these, numerous state and private universities offer law courses, further strengthening legal education in the country.
The lack of transparency in the collegium system, where senior judges recommend appointments, adds to these concerns. Critics suggest reforms like a merit-based and open selection process, clearer guidelines to avoid conflicts of interest, and involving experts from outside the judiciary. Such changes can help ensure fairness, maintain judicial independence, and build trust in the system.
Some well-known family traditions in the judiciary
Some well-known families of judges in India include Justice P.N. Bhagwati, who served as the 17th Chief Justice of India and came from a distinguished judicial family. His father, Justice Nageshwar Prasad Bhagwati, was also a judge at the Gujarat High Court. The recently retired Chief Justice Dhananjaya Chandrachud has a notable background too; his father, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, was the longest-serving Chief Justice of India. Justice H.R. Khanna also has a family rich in legal tradition, with his son Vivek Khanna becoming a judge of the Delhi High Court.
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, known for his progressive views, had family members involved in law as well. Many from the Iyer family served as judges and lawyers in the Madras High Court, continuing the family legacy. Justice Ranganath Misra, the 21st Chief Justice of India and the first chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, had a nephew, Justice Dipak Misra, who also became Chief Justice of India.
The collegium’s possible decision to revisit this issue shows a growing focus on making public institutions more transparent. This move aligns with the recommendations of several commissions and committees that have called for changes in how judges are appointed. While the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015, it brought attention to the need for a more open and inclusive system.
If this policy change is implemented, it could greatly help rebuild public trust in the judiciary. It would demonstrate that the institution values merit and independence over favoritism. Although balancing tradition with reform may be challenging, the collegium’s effort to tackle controversial matters is a step in the right direction for India’s judicial system.
In short, the Supreme Court Collegium’s reported review of appointments involving judges’ family members is both timely and essential. By focusing on transparency and merit, the judiciary can strengthen its role as a fair guardian of justice and uphold democratic values.