NGO Janshruti has filed a PIL in the Supreme Court under Article 32 urging reforms in the judge appointment process. The plea calls for replacing the opaque Collegium system with a transparent, objective, and statutory mechanism.
New Delhi: A new public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court by an NGO called Janshruti (People’s Voice) under Article 32 of the Constitution, asking for major reforms in how judges are appointed to the higher judiciary.
The petition seeks to replace the existing Collegium system with a transparent, fair, and rule-based selection process that has proper constitutional or legal backing.
The petition has been filed through Advocate-on-Record Sadhana Sandhu and Advocate Nikhil Kumar Sharma.
According to the plea, the Collegium system, which came into existence through the Second Judges Case (1993) and Third Judges Case (1998), suffers from serious problems such as lack of transparency, accountability, objectivity, and diversity.
The petition argues that this system effectively allows “judges to appoint judges”, which was never the intention of the Constitution and does not have any constitutional or legislative sanction.
The PIL points out that the Constitution, under Articles 124, 217, and 222, clearly provides that judges are to be appointed by the President of India in consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and, where necessary, the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court.
The petitioner argues that the framers of the Constitution chose the word “consultation” instead of “concurrence” to ensure that no single authority, including the judiciary, would have exclusive power over appointments.
The plea says that the Constitution makers rejected both executive dominance and judicial monopoly, aiming for a balanced consultative process.
Referring to the Constituent Assembly Debates of 1949, the petition explains that the system was meant to ensure shared responsibility between the executive and judiciary.
However, later judicial interpretations, especially in the Second and Third Judges Cases, disturbed this balance and led to the creation of the present Collegium system.
The petition also cites several former Supreme Court judges who have openly criticized the Collegium system. Justice Ruma Pal (Retd.) once described it as
“the best-kept secret in this country.”
Similarly, Justice J. Chelameswar called it “opaque and inconsistent.” Justice Markandey Katju went further and urged that the Second Judges Case be reconsidered by an 11-judge bench, saying that
“nowhere in the world do judges appoint judges.”
The petitioner has also referred to the Fourth Judges Case (2015), where the Supreme Court struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act.
In that landmark judgment, the Court acknowledged that the Collegium system has flaws and promised reforms through a new Memorandum of Procedure (MoP).
However, the petition points out that even after nearly ten years, no meaningful reform has been implemented, and the process continues to function without transparency or accountability.
The plea further stresses that judicial independence cannot mean judicial monopoly. It argues that the appointment process must be transparent, data-driven, and accountable, thereby maintaining public trust in the judiciary and restoring the constitutional balance of powers.
To support its demand for reform, the PIL highlights international models such as those in the United Kingdom, United States, and South Africa, where judicial appointments are made through statutory commissions or with parliamentary oversight.
ALSO READ: Collegium System Shields Judiciary’s Autonomy Despite Flaws: Justice Surya Kant
These systems, it argues, maintain both independence and accountability, providing examples that India could learn from.
The petition finally urges the Supreme Court to take the lead in creating a transparent, fair, and law-backed mechanism for appointing judges, which will protect judicial independence while ensuring public confidence in the process.
Case Title:
Janshruti (People’s Voice) v. Union of India
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Collegium System
