Current Affairs · · GS2 · Polity

Retired judge's memoir reopens debate on collegium independence

Former Supreme Court judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul has said in a forthcoming memoir that names for judicial appointments were discussed with the government before the collegium formally considered them. Former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud said he had not read the book and recalled the meetings as cordial. The episode has revived debate on transparency and independence in judicial appointments.

Event date:

REq1
  1. Note1 / 5

    WHY IN NEWS?

    • Retired Supreme Court judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul has written a memoir, Without Fear or Favour, and discussed it in interviews in late October 2026.
    • He said names for Supreme Court appointments were sometimes discussed with the government before the collegium formally deliberated.
    • He distinguished consultation with the government, which he accepted, from seeking its approval in advance, which he opposed.
    • He said the practice existed before and after the tenure in question.
    • Former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud said he had not read the book, that collegium meetings were cordial, and that he did not recall a walkout.

    These are the account of one participant and the response of another. No finding has been made.

  2. Note2 / 5

    HOW THE COLLEGIUM EVOLVED

    CaseYearOutcome
    First Judges Case1981Executive primacy; "consultation" not "concurrence"
    Second Judges Case1993Judicial primacy; collegium system created
    Third Judges Case1998Collegium of CJI and four senior-most judges for Supreme Court appointments
    NJAC case (Fourth Judges Case)201599th Amendment and NJAC struck down as violating judicial independence

    For High Court appointments, the CJI and two senior-most Supreme Court judges form the collegium.

  3. Note3 / 5

    KEY CONCEPTS

    1. What does Article 124(2) say?

    The President appoints Supreme Court judges after consulting such judges as necessary, and always the CJI for judges other than the CJI.

    1. What does Article 217 cover?

    The appointment of High Court judges, after consulting the CJI, the State Governor and the High Court Chief Justice.

    1. What is the Memorandum of Procedure?

    It is the document setting out the process for appointments. After 2015, the Court asked for a revised version covering eligibility, transparency, a secretariat and complaints. It remains unfinalised.

    1. Why is judicial independence part of the basic structure?

    Courts must decide cases without fear of the executive. Control over appointments is one way this is protected.

  4. Note4 / 5

    THE DEBATE

    This card sets out documented positions. It does not adjudicate between them.

    • For the collegium: It shields appointments from political influence and relies on judges' knowledge of candidates.
    • Against: Its criteria and reasons are not fully public, and it lacks external accountability.
    • The new concern: Informal advance discussions with the executive could blur the line between consultation and approval.
    • Other problems: Long vacancies in High Courts and low representation of women and some social groups.
  5. Note5 / 5

    WAY FORWARD

    These are suggested measures, not approved policy.

    • Finalise the Memorandum of Procedure with clear eligibility, steps and timelines.
    • Publish reasons for recommendations and the criteria used.
    • Set up a permanent secretariat to maintain candidate records.
    • Fix timelines for the government to process names.
    • Improve diversity among judges.
    • Define how the executive is consulted, so interactions are formal and recorded.

Sources

Syllabus

PaperSubjectSub-topic
GS2PolityJudiciary, appointments, separation of powers, accountability
PrelimsPolityArticles 124, 217, 222; Judges Cases; NJAC; Memorandum of Procedure

Topics

Fundamental RightsGovernanceHigher Judiciary (SC and HC)

Related previous-year questions

Asked in earlier UPSC Prelims papers on this topic. Answer, then check.

  1. UPSC Prelims 2012 · Polity · Higher Judiciary (SC and HC)

    What is the provision to safeguard the autonomy of the Supreme Court of India? 1. While appointing the Supreme Court Judges, the President of India has to consult the Chief Justice of India. 2. The Supreme Court Judges can be removed by the Chief Justice of India only. 3. The salaries of the Judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India to which the legislature does not have to vote. 4. All appointments of officers and staffs of the Supreme Court of India are made by the Government only after consulting the Chief Justice of India. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    1. 1 and 3 only
    2. 3 only
    3. 1, 2 and 4 only
    4. 1, 2, 3 and 4
    Show answer

    Answer: A. Correct Answer: 1 and 3 only The Constitution provides several safeguards to protect the independence and autonomy of the Supreme Court. These safeguards relate to judicial appointments, removal process, salaries, service conditions and administrative control. Statement-wise Explanation 1. While appointing the Supreme Court Judges, the President of India has to consult the Chief Justice of India — Correct Under Article 124, Supreme Court judges are appointed by the President after consultation with judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as deemed necessary. For appointment of a Supreme Court judge other than the Chief Justice of India, consultation with the CJI is required. 2. The Supreme Court Judges can be removed by the Chief Justice of India only — Incorrect The Chief Justice of India cannot remove a Supreme Court judge. A judge can be removed only by an order of the President after Parliament passes an address by special majority on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. 3. The salaries of the Judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India to which the legislature does not have to vote — Correct Salaries, allowances and pensions of Supreme Court judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India. This means they are not subject to vote by Parliament, helping protect judicial independence. 4. All appointments of officers and staffs of the Supreme Court of India are made by the Government only after consulting the Chief Justice of India — Incorrect This is reversed. Under Article 146, appointments of officers and servants of the Supreme Court are made by the Chief Justice of India or by another judge or officer authorised by the CJI, not by the Government. Extra UPSC Info * Article 124 deals with the establishment and constitution of the Supreme Court. * Supreme Court judges hold office until the age of 65 years. * Article 121 bars discussion in Parliament on the conduct of judges except during removal proceedings. * Article 124(7) prohibits retired Supreme Court judges from pleading or acting in any court or before any authority in India. * Article 129 makes the Supreme Court a court of record with power to punish for contempt. * Parliament can extend the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court but cannot curtail its constitutional jurisdiction. Final Takeaway Consultation in appointments and charged expenditure protect Supreme Court autonomy, while removal by CJI and government control over court staff are incorrect.

    Difficulty: easy · statement

    Open this question on its own page, with the full explanation →

  2. UPSC Prelims 2014 · Polity · Higher Judiciary (SC and HC)

    The power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court of India is vested in

    1. The President of India
    2. The Parliament
    3. The Chief Justice of India
    4. The Law Commission
    Show answer

    Answer: B. VERDICT: The answer is Parliament. The strength of the Supreme Court is fixed by law made by Parliament under Article 124. ANALYSIS: Article 124(1) provides for a Chief Justice and, until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number, a specified number of other judges, so any increase requires legislation such as the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act. The President is wrong because the President appoints individual judges but cannot alter the sanctioned strength. The Chief Justice is wrong because the collegium recommends appointments within the sanctioned strength. The Law Commission is wrong because it is a non statutory advisory body that can recommend but not decide. SOURCE: M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity. Source type EM. HOW TO CRACK IT: Separate three different powers that candidates habitually merge: who fixes the number, who appoints the person, and who recommends the name. Parliament fixes, the President appoints, the collegium recommends. The same three way split works for High Court strength and for the removal process, where the roles again divide between Parliament and the President. Once the split is clear, every distractor in this question is visibly answering a different question.

    Difficulty: medium · direct

    Open this question on its own page, with the full explanation →

  3. UPSC Prelims 2018 · Polity · Basic Concepts of Constitution

    Consider the following statements: 1. The Parliament of India can place a particular law in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India. 2. The validity of a law placed in the Ninth Schedule cannot be examined by any court and no judgement can be made on it. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    1. 1 only
    2. 2 only
    3. Both 1 and 2
    4. Neither 1 nor 2
    Show answer

    Answer: A. Only statement 1 is correct, so the answer is (a) 1 only. Statement 1 is CORRECT. The Ninth Schedule was added by the First Amendment in 1951 along with Article 31B, to give a protective umbrella to land reform laws. The Supreme Court has upheld Article 31B and Parliament's power to place a law in the Schedule. Statement 2 is INCORRECT. Such laws enjoy no blanket protection. The Supreme Court has held they remain open to judicial scrutiny, and specifically that laws added after the Kesavananda Bharati judgment of 24 April 1973, which propounded the basic structure doctrine, can be challenged. SOURCE: Indian Polity by M. Laxmikanth, chapter on Fundamental Rights. HOW TO CRACK IT: Statement 2 stacks two absolutes, cannot be examined by any court and no judgement can be made. An absolute bar on judicial review is almost always false after 1973, because the basic structure doctrine is the tool the Court reserved to pierce such bars. Flag the words any, no, never and only in a Polity statement and test them against basic structure first.

    Difficulty: medium · statement

    Open this question on its own page, with the full explanation →

  4. UPSC Prelims 2019 · Polity · Higher Judiciary (SC and HC)

    Consider the following statements: 1. The motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of Indian cannot be rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. 2. The Constitution of India defines and gives details of what constitutes 'incapacity and proved misbehaviour' of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India. 3. The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India are given in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. 4. If the motion for the impeachment of a Judge is taken up for voting, the law requires the motion to be backed by each House of the Parliament and supported by a majority of total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of total members of that House present and voting. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    1. 1 and 2
    2. 3 only
    3. 3 and 4 only
    4. 1, 3 and 4
    Show answer

    Answer: C. Statement 1 – INCORRECT: The Constitution does not use the word 'impeachment'; it is colloquially used to refer to the proceedings under Article 124 (for the removal of a Supreme Court judge). The Speaker/Chairman may admit the motion or refuse to admit it. Hence the Speaker can reject the motion; statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 – INCORRECT: While the Constitution does not use the word 'impeachment', it colloquially refers to proceedings under Article 124 and Article 218. The Constitution does not define and give details of what constitutes 'incapacity and proved misbehaviour' — that is left to the Judges Enquiry Act 1968. Statement 3 – CORRECT: The Judges Enquiry Act (1968) regulates the procedure relating to the removal of a judge of the Supreme Court by the process of impeachment. Statement 4 – CORRECT: If the motion is passed by each House of Parliament by a special majority, an address is presented to the president for removal of the judge. This requires majority of total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of total members of that House present and voting. Correct statements: 3 and 4 → Option (c).

    Difficulty: medium · statement

    Open this question on its own page, with the full explanation →

  5. UPSC Prelims 2021 · Polity · Higher Judiciary (SC and HC)

    With reference to Indian judiciary, consider the following statements: 1. Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with prior permission of the President of India. 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?

    1. 1 only
    2. 2 only
    3. Both 1 and 2 only
    4. Neither 1 nor 2
    Show answer

    Answer: C. Statement 1 – CORRECT: Article 128: Chief Justice of India may at any time, with the previous consent of the president, request any person who has held the office of a Judge of the Supreme Court or of the Federal Court or who has held the office of a Judge of a High Court and is duly qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court to sit and act as a Judge of the Supreme Court. Thus, statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 – CORRECT: Article 215: Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. As a court of record, a High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement (Pottakalathil Ramakrishnan v. Thahsildar, Tirur & ors.). Thus, statement 2 is also correct. Correct statements: Both 1 and 2 → Option (c).

    Difficulty: medium · statement

    Open this question on its own page, with the full explanation →

  6. UPSC Prelims 2023 · Polity · Fundamental Rights

    Consider the following statements: Statement-I: The Supreme Court of India has held in some judgements that the reservation policies made under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India would be limited by Article 335 for maintenance of efficiency of the administration. Statement-II: Article 335 of the Constitution of India defines the term 'efficiency of administration'. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

    1. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is the correct explanation for Statement-I
    2. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is not the correct explanation for Statement-I
    3. Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect
    4. Statement-I is incorrect but Statement-II is correct
    Show answer

    Answer: C. Statement I – CORRECT: Article 16(4) provides that the State can enact legislation for reservation of posts in government sector in favour of backward classes. The Supreme Court has consistently referred to 'efficiency' and 'merit' while adjudicating reservation policies, holding that reservation policies made under Article 16(4) would be limited by Article 335, which provides for 'maintenance of efficiency of administration' while considering claims of SCs and STs in making appointments to public services and posts. Statement II – INCORRECT: Article 335 states that the claims of members of SCs and STs shall be taken into consideration consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration. However, Article 335 has NOT defined the term 'efficiency of administration'. Hence option (c) — Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect — is the correct answer.

    Difficulty: hard · assertion

    Open this question on its own page, with the full explanation →

Practice questions

  1. Which case established the collegium system for judicial appointments?

    1. First Judges Case, 1981
    2. Second Judges Case, 1993
    3. Third Judges Case, 1998
    4. NJAC case, 2015
    Show answer

    Answer: B. It gave the judiciary primacy in appointments.

    Difficulty: medium · statement

  2. The National Judicial Appointments Commission was struck down by the Supreme Court in:

    1. 2013
    2. 2014
    3. 2015
    4. 2017
    Show answer

    Answer: C. The Court held it violated judicial independence, part of the basic structure.

    Difficulty: medium · statement

  3. For appointments to High Courts, the Supreme Court collegium consists of:

    1. CJI and four senior-most judges
    2. CJI and two senior-most judges
    3. CJI alone
    4. CJI and all Supreme Court judges
    Show answer

    Answer: B. Supreme Court appointments use CJI and four senior-most judges.

    Difficulty: medium · statement

Mains practice

Answer-writing practice on this article. Attempt it first, then open the hints.

  1. GS2 · 250 words

    "The collegium system protects judicial independence but at the cost of transparency." Critically examine and suggest reforms.

    Show hints
    1. Judges Cases, NJAC verdict
    2. Memorandum of Procedure
    3. consultation vs pre-approval
    4. vacancies, diversity
    5. secretariat.