New Delhi: Judges appointments executive interference has become a major concern in India’s judicial system, according to former High Court Chief Justice and Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar. Speaking at the 28th D.S. Borker Memorial Lecture on the Vision of India 2047, he said that the process of appointing judges has witnessed “unexplained interference by the executive” over the past 12 years.
He also raised concerns about transparency, judicial vacancies, and the growing backlog of cases in Indian courts.
S Muralidhar Raises Questions Over Indian Collegium System
Dr. S. Muralidhar sharply questioned whether the collegium system has succeeded in ensuring independence and merit-based judicial appointments. He said there is now a broad agreement that the current system has not fully achieved its objective of selecting the best possible candidates for the judiciary.
Read also: Article 222 and Collegium System: Government Details How High Court Judges Are Transferred
Indian Collegium System: Concerns Over Executive Interference
According to Muralidhar, the appointment process during the last 12 years has witnessed unexplained executive interference. He stated that this issue has been compounded by vague selection criteria, lack of transparency, and inefficiencies in the overall appointment mechanism.
What Is The Collegium System
The Collegium system is the process through which judges appoint judges to the higher judiciary in India. It evolved through a series of Supreme Court judgments and gives primacy to the judiciary in appointments and transfers of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. However, the system has often faced criticism over transparency and accountability concerns.
Indian Collegium System: Judicial Vacancies Continue To Be A Challenge
Muralidhar highlighted that retirement dates of judges are known well in advance. Despite this, replacements are often not appointed on time, leading to vacancies across High Courts. He warned that merely increasing the sanctioned strength of judges without making appointments faster and more efficient could worsen the vacancy crisis.
Judges Are Not Solely Responsible For Case Backlogs
The former Chief Justice argued that there is a common misconception that judges alone are responsible for mounting case arrears. He pointed to case clearance statistics and said many judges are working efficiently to handle heavy workloads. According to him, a significant section of judges consistently contributes to reducing pendency through effective case management.
State Policies Also Add To Litigation
Muralidhar said governments at both the Centre and State levels contribute to rising litigation. He argued that arbitrary decisions, delayed administrative action, unnecessary arrests, and criminalisation of routine democratic activities often push citizens to approach courts.
Government Appeals Increase Court Burden
He also noted that governments frequently appeal against adverse judgments, even in relatively small matters. According to him, this practice adds significantly to the burden on courts and increases the volume of pending cases.
Poor Coordination By Government Counsel Impacts Efficiency
Muralidhar further stated that government-appointed lawyers sometimes contribute to delays through repeated adjournments and inadequate preparation. He said delayed filings, missing records, and poor instructions from departments often slow down judicial proceedings and frustrate judges across different levels of the judiciary.
Read also: Collegium System Can Be More Transparent Without Losing Integrity: CJI Surya Kant
FAQs
The Collegium system is a judicial appointment mechanism where senior judges recommend appointments and transfers of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
S. Muralidhar said that the appointment of judges over the last 12 years has witnessed unexplained executive interference and that the current system suffers from transparency and efficiency issues.
Judicial vacancies increase pressure on existing judges, contribute to delays in case disposal, and make it harder to reduce pending cases across courts.
