The shift "From Collegium to Commissions" in India refers to the failed 2014–2015 transition from the judge-led Collegium system to the proposed National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). Recently, the introduction of a private member bill by the DMK Member of Parliament and senior advocate P. Wilson, in the Rajya Sabha, attempted to amend the constitution and provide greater diversity in judicial appointments and establish regional benches of the Supreme Court. This is important because it can enhance inclusivity, transparency, and wider access to justice all over India, and will help in finding solutions to long-standing issues of representational adequacy.
|
Key Highlights
- The case for Diversity in the Judiciary
- DMK’s Private Bill for Judicial Reforms
- What is a private member's bill?
- Evolution of the Collegium System
- The NJAC and the Supreme Court
- Supreme Courts’ Regional Benches
|
The problem of diversity in the Indian judiciary has also been rekindled as one of the core issues in present-day discussions about governance and justice. The debatable and structural limitations of the collegium system and the wider imperative of inclusiveness in court appointment procedures have been placed in renewed focus with the introduction of a private member's bill by DMK parliamentarian P Wilson. The introduction of a private members’ bill has further raised questions on the ineffectiveness of the collegium system in structure and its underlying imperatives to ensure inclusiveness in the procedures of judicial appointment. At the same time, the dismissal by the Supreme Court of the National Judicial Appointments Commission highlights the exquisite balance in the independence and credibility of the judiciary. Suggestions of regional benches also shed light on the need to democratize the accessibility of justice and make justice not only unbiased but also geographically equitable.
Explore the debate on India judicial appointments collegium versus commissions and its impact on diversity transparency & public access. From Collegium to Commissions in India refers to the failed 2014–2015 transition from the judge led collegium system to the proposed National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
Diversity in the judiciary
Diversity in the judicial context goes beyond just being symbolic; diversity is a core factor of legitimacy, inclusiveness, and fairness in the dispensation of justice. It is important to have diversity within the judicial system of India, which will not only enhance democratic legitimacy but also increase trust in the system.
Social Representation in the Judiciary
In the past, the judiciary has had representatives of the upper-caste men, thus discriminating against underrepresented groups. The Ministry of Law and Justice cites that women in the High Courts are less than 12% of the judges, and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are seriously underrepresented when it comes to higher judiciary appointments. Greater representation means that judicial verdicts will have a wider range of lived experiences in common.
Gender Diversity in the Judiciary
Studies have shown the existence of gender inequality in the judicial system. In a study by Mansarovar Global University, the researchers found that the structural challenges, such as opaque collegium practices and gender stereotypes of society, hindered the progress of women into the higher judiciary. Raising the presence of women judges does not just concern fairness, but adds to jurisprudence as it brings in insights into the issue of gender justice, family law, and equality in the workplace.
Professional and Regional Diversity in the Judiciary
Other than social identity, diversity has to include professional experiences and representation within their regions. The diversification that the judiciary acquires through selection comes with a wide range of experiences and narratives in multiple dimensions. The regional diversity also ensures that courts have a federal nature in India, which is over-centralized in Delhi, and makes accessibility to courts more available nationally for litigants.
Judicial-Democratic Legitimacy
The existence of a judiciary that reflects the social fabric of India strengthens the confidence of the Indians. Inclusivity in the judicial establishments enhances democratic legitimacy and addresses any sentiment of arrogance. In line with this, diversity turns into a constitutional mandate, as opposed to an idealistic aspiration.
DMK’s Private Bill for Judicial Reforms
DMK Rajya Sabha MP P. Wilson introduced a Private Member’s Constitution Amendment Bill in February 2026, aiming for major judicial reforms to ensure social diversity, transparency, and improved access in the higher judiciary. The Bill by DMK MP P. Wilson, a private member, has sparked the suggestion on judicial reforms, once again focusing on making the judicial system in India more diverse, transparent, and accessible by making changes to the constitution.
Amendments Proposed in the Constitution
The Bill is aimed at amending Articles 124, 217, and 224 of the Constitution so as to enforce diversity in appointment to the bench. It suggests proportional representation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, minorities, and women in the Supreme Court and High Courts, which is related to population records based on results on caste census.
|
Did you know?
|
What is a private members’ bill?
A private members’ bill is a bill presented in legislature by a Member of Parliament (MP) who is not a minister. This means that any MP who is not a member of the government is considered a private member and the bills he or she develops are outstanding as a private member's bill. Such legislative projects are not the same as government bills, which are proposed by ministers.
Articles 107 and 108 of the Indian Constitution state that both government and private members have the right to introduce a bill in parliament, subject to the rules of procedure in the parliament. Private members’ bill are usually set to be discussed on Fridays; they are rarely put into law, but serve an important purpose of bringing matters into light, opening up debate, and influencing the way policy takes shape.
|
Regional bench of the Supreme Court
The Bill by Wilson suggests that Chennai, Mumbai, Kolkata, and Delhi should be developed as regional permanence benches. This institutional change intends to decentralise access to justice, alleviate travelling costs, and democratise the involvement in the top court.
Transparency and Reform in Collegium
The Bill also seeks to give the collegium system constitutional status and also provide avenues of increased transparency in the appointment process. It emphasizes responsibility so that the selection of judges does not rely on a small group of elderly members of the judiciary.
Retirement Age of Judges
The other major feature is a proposal to raise High Court judges' retirement age to 65 years old, as opposed to 62 years old. The idea behind this is to ensure the retention of the experienced judges and, hence, enhance judicial capacity at the same time, increasing the choice of the candidates.
Evolution of the Collegium System
The collegium system developed as a result of historic judicial decisions, and it influenced the judicial autonomy in India. Its trend indicates how Indian courts have strived to make appointments unaffected by politicians and yet constitutional.
First Judges Case (1981)
In S.P. Gupta v. The Union of India, the Supreme Court had stated that the purpose of the consultation with the Chief Justice was not a concurrence, but it preceded the executive in the field of appointment. This ruling was a starting point of the debate on judicial independence.
Second Judges Case (1993)
The case on the verge was separated at the Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association v. The Union of India, where the Court reversed its previous decision. It established the Chief Justice and senior judges to be in the lead in appointment-making, the basis of the collegium system.
Third Judges Case (1998)
By a Presidential Reference, the number of judges on the collegium was increased to incorporate the Chief Justice and the four senior-most judges. Such expansive consultation was to reduce arbitrariness and enforce collective decision-making.
Criticisms of the Collegium System
Although the collegium system has a role to play in protecting independence, there has been criticism of lack of diversity since it is opaque. By 2025, less than 12 percent of High Court judges are women, and the marginalised groups are poorly represented, which highlights the systemic restraints with regard to inclusivity.
The NJAC and the Supreme Court
It was a major attempt at reforming the judicial appointments in India, which was called the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), but after the Supreme Court annulment, the question of judges being independent and accountable was again discussed.
NJAC Framework
The collegium system was substituted by the NJAC through the 99th Constitutional Amendment (2014). It suggested that there should be a six-member body that will include the Chief Justice of India, two senior judges, the Law Minister, and two eminent persons. It aimed at bringing about transparency and balance between the executive and the judiciary in the appointment process.
Supreme Court's Verdict (2015)
In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. the Union of India, a five-judge bench declared NJAC unconstitutional. The Court believed that the primacy of the judiciary in appointments was part of the doctrine of the basic structure, and the executive's involvement would threaten independence.
Critics on Supreme Court’s Verdict
Scholars like Abhinav Chandrachud (2016) have contended that the NJAC was indicative of a greater accountability in the judiciary. Nevertheless, there is empirical evidence that diversity stood at one point, even in the existence of the NJAC. As an example, according to the Vidhi Centre of Legal Policy (2015), a bare minimum of 15 percent of the High Court judges belonged to marginalised communities, which means that even structural changes will not ensure inclusiveness.
|
Supreme Courts’ Regional Benches: Enhancing Access
|
|
The Supreme Court of India in New Delhi is often a challenge to litigants in the remote states in regard to accessibility. Article 130 of the Constitution permits the Court to sit at other convertible sites, thus making it easier to offer suggestions of regional benches in Chennai, Mumbai, and Kolkata. This decentralisation would help reduce the costs of travelling, improve delays in the process, and enhance democracy. The judiciary work could be better dispersed with regional benches set up, taking off the docket that is currently having over 70,000 unfinished cases. Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice (133rd Report) has strongly supported this reform, which is likely to build inclusivity and strengthen access to justice throughout the country.
|
Conclusion
The question of judicial diversity highlights the changing dilemma of judicial independence, accountability, and inclusiveness in the Indian Constitution. As much as the collegium system protects the independence, its veil has restricted representation. The experiment of NJAC demonstrated the conflict between reform and judicial primacy, and the Bill by P. Wilson indicates renewed interest by the legislature in the idea of inclusivity and access. Benches established regionally also enhance the democratisation of justice. Finally, judicial diversity is directly linked to legitimacy, and the pluralism of Indian democracy is guaranteed by it.