Few topics in UPSC preparation sit so perfectly at the intersection of Polity and Current Affairs as the appointment of judges in India. Every few months, a fresh controversy erupts between the judiciary and the executive over this very issue — and every time, the Collegium System is at the centre of that debate.
I have seen this topic appear repeatedly in both Prelims and Mains over the years. If you understand the Collegium System well, you can answer questions on judicial independence, separation of powers, constitutional interpretation, and ongoing governance debates — all from one strong foundation. Let me walk you through it systematically.
Where This Topic Sits in the UPSC Syllabus
| Exam Stage | Paper | Syllabus Section |
|---|---|---|
| Prelims | General Studies | Indian Polity — Judiciary, Appointment of Judges |
| Mains | GS-II | Structure, Organisation and Functioning of the Judiciary |
| Mains | GS-II | Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances |
This topic connects directly to questions on judicial independence, judicial activism, and the relationship between the executive and judiciary. It has appeared in various forms at least 8-10 times in the last 15 years.
What Is the Collegium System
The Collegium System is the mechanism by which judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed and transferred in India. Here is the key point many students miss — this system is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. It was born entirely out of judicial interpretation through a series of Supreme Court judgments.
The Constitution, under Article 124 (for the Supreme Court) and Article 217 (for High Courts), says the President shall appoint judges “after consultation” with the Chief Justice of India and other judges. The word “consultation” became the battleground. Does consultation mean the executive must agree with the judiciary? Or can it override?
The Three Judges Cases — How the System Evolved
The Collegium System emerged through three landmark cases. Understanding them in sequence is essential.
First Judges Case (S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981): The Supreme Court ruled that “consultation” does not mean “concurrence.” This meant the executive had the final say in judicial appointments. The government’s opinion could prevail over the Chief Justice’s recommendation.
Second Judges Case (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, 1993): This overruled the First Judges Case. The Court held that “consultation” effectively means “concurrence.” The Chief Justice’s opinion, formed in consultation with the two senior-most judges, would have primacy. This is when the Collegium System was born.
Third Judges Case (1998): The President sought an advisory opinion under Article 143. The Court expanded the Collegium from three to five — the CJI plus four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. For High Court appointments, the Collegium consults two senior-most judges of the concerned High Court.
How the Collegium Works in Practice
For Supreme Court appointments, the Collegium of five judges recommends names to the Union Government. The government can send back a name once with objections. But if the Collegium reiterates the name, the government is bound to accept it.
For High Court appointments, the process involves the Chief Justice of the respective High Court, the state Governor, and the Union Law Ministry — but the final recommendation still rests with the Supreme Court Collegium.
Transfers of High Court judges are also decided by the Collegium. This has been a source of friction, as some judges have publicly protested their transfers.
Why the Collegium System Is Criticised
The criticisms are serious and come from multiple directions:
- Lack of transparency: Collegium deliberations were entirely secret until 2019, when the Supreme Court began publishing its resolutions and reasons online.
- No accountability: Unlike a statutory body, the Collegium has no formal rules of procedure. There is no external check on its functioning.
- Judges appointing judges: Critics call it a “closed club.” There is no representation of the Bar, the Parliament, or civil society in the process.
- Delays: Appointments often take months or years, contributing to judicial vacancies across High Courts.
- Nepotism allegations: Questions have been raised about relatives of judges being elevated without sufficient merit scrutiny.
The NJAC Attempt and Its Failure
In 2014, Parliament passed the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act. The NJAC was designed to replace the Collegium with a six-member body comprising the CJI, two senior SC judges, the Law Minister, and two eminent persons nominated by a committee.
In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down both the Amendment and the Act in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India. The Court held that the NJAC threatened judicial independence because it gave the executive a role in appointments. This was a rare instance of the Court striking down a constitutional amendment.
This judgment itself is a rich source for Mains questions on basic structure doctrine, judicial independence, and separation of powers.
The Current Affairs Dimension — Why This Stays Relevant in 2026
The tension between the government and the judiciary on appointments has not reduced. In recent years, we have seen the Union Law Minister publicly commenting on the Collegium’s functioning. The Supreme Court has responded by asserting its independence.
Key current issues connected to this topic include:
- High judicial vacancies — over 30% posts in High Courts remain unfilled
- Delays in government clearing Collegium recommendations
- Calls for a reformed NJAC or a new mechanism
- Demand for diversity in judicial appointments — more women, SC/ST, and OBC judges
Every time a news story appears about judicial appointments, you are essentially reading a Polity + Current Affairs crossover question waiting to happen.
Previous Year UPSC Questions on This Topic
Q1. With reference to the Indian judiciary, consider the following statements:
1. Any retired judge of the Supreme Court can be called back to sit and act as a judge by the Chief Justice of India with prior consent of the President.
2. A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(UPSC Prelims 2021 — GS)
Answer: Statement 1 is correct (Article 128). Statement 2 is also correct — High Courts have review jurisdiction under Article 226 read with procedural rules. This question tested knowledge of judicial structure, which is the same domain as the Collegium System.
Q2. “The__(judiciary) has the power to undo the work of the legislature and the executive. Explain how judicial activism in India has impacted the balance of power among the three organs of the State.”
(UPSC Mains 2018 — GS-II, 15 marks)
Answer approach: Define judicial activism. Discuss how the Collegium System itself is an example of judicial activism — the judiciary effectively rewrote the appointments process through interpretation. Then discuss PIL, environmental jurisprudence, and right to privacy as other examples. Conclude by noting the delicate balance between judicial independence and judicial overreach.
Q3. Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014.
(UPSC Mains 2017 — GS-II)
Answer approach: Explain the NJAC’s composition and intent. Discuss the Court’s reasoning — primacy of judicial independence under basic structure. Then critically assess: while independence is vital, the Collegium lacks transparency and accountability. A middle path is needed. This question directly tests everything covered in this article.
Key Points to Remember for UPSC
- The Collegium System has no constitutional or statutory basis — it emerged from the Second Judges Case (1993) and was refined in the Third Judges Case (1998).
- The Collegium for Supreme Court appointments consists of the CJI and four senior-most judges.
- The government can return a Collegium recommendation once, but must accept if the Collegium reiterates it.
- The 99th Amendment and NJAC Act were struck down in 2015 on the ground that they violated the basic structure (judicial independence).
- The First Judges Case (1981) gave primacy to the executive; the Second Judges Case reversed this and gave primacy to the judiciary.
- Judicial vacancies, lack of diversity, and transparency concerns remain live issues in 2026.
- This topic connects to basic structure doctrine, separation of powers, judicial activism, and federalism — making it a high-value crossover topic for Mains.
The Collegium System is one of those topics where a single strong understanding helps you tackle questions across multiple areas of GS-II. I would recommend reading the original judgments’ summaries from any standard Polity textbook, and then tracking judicial appointment news monthly. That combination of static knowledge and current awareness will serve you well in both Prelims and Mains.